Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Choir.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

ARDROSSAN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Ardrossan Harbour," presented by Sir Archibald Sinclair; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

POLICE, EDINBURGH.

Mr. MATHERS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of police staff of all ranks in the Edinburgh Corporation area and the total amount of their emoluments for the year ended 31st March, 1931?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): On 31st March, 1931, the Edinburgh City Police Force numbered 802 members, inclusive of 51 additional police employed at the expense of the Leith Dock Commission, and two policewomen. During the year ended 31st March, 1931, the total pay of the members of the Force was £192,580 18s. 7d. In addition, various allowances amounting to approximately £25,507 were paid, while the cost of quarters provided in lieu of rent allowances, of providing free medical and dental treatment and medicines, and of providing uniforms, was approximately £8,046 2s.1d.

Mr. MATHERS: May I assume that the cuts will only he applied to the actual salaries and wages?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That question does not arise.

CIVIL SERVANTS.

Mr. MATHERS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of civil servants of all grades employed in the various Departments in Edinburgh and the total amount of their emoluments for a year?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The latest figures readily available relate to 1st April, 1930, when the number of Civil Service staffs serving in Edinburgh—both of Scottish Departments and of Departments whose jurisdiction extends throughout Great Britain, but excluding industrial employés—was 6,355 and the total amount of their emoluments (including overtime and allowances) for a year was £1,643,000. The corresponding figures at the present time are estimated at 6,500 and £1,500,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

BRISTOL CHANNEL PORTS (SCOTTISH COAL).

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the quantity of Scottish coal imported in the Bristol Channel ports during the last 10 weeks, stating each week separately?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Foot): Weekly particulars of coal shipped as cargo from Scottish ports to Bristol Channel ports are not available, but the quantities so shipped during June, July and August were 3,725 tons, 2,590 tons and 3,430 tons, respectively.

EMPLOYÉS, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. TINKER: 4.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mine workers in Lancashire at the present time, the figures for 12 months ago, and the number for 19217

Mr. FOOT: On 19th September, 1931, 69,200 wage-earners were employed at coal mines in Lancashire and Cheshire, as compared with 72,300 and 106,100 respectively at the corresponding date in 1930 and 1921.

OVERTIME.

Mr. TINKER: 5.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of complaints sent in to the mines inspectors in respect of overtime being worked in the mines since the passing into law of the seven and a half hours Act; and if any prosecutions have been taken to court?

Mr. FOOT: The number of complaints of this nature received by His Majesty's divisional inspectors of mines since 1st December, 1930, is 94. All these cases were investigated, and whenever necessary administrative action was taken. There has been no prosecution during the period in question.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the machine cut faces overtime is being worked in many cases, and will he instruct his inspectors to pay close attention to it?

Mr. FOOT: I am fully aware that the difficulty arises with machine cutting. I believe my predecessor sought to have the matter dealt with by a conference between employers and workpeople. It was discussed in Scotland and afterwards brought before the Yorkshire coalfield for their consideration, and I believe it is still under consideration.

Mr. TINKER: Did the inspectors make inspection of the time books when they made inspection of the mines?

Mr. FOOT: I assume so, but I will make inquiries.

SUPPLIES.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 6.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that exporters of coal in Yorkshire are complaining that contracts are being lost to the Yorkshire coalfield owing to lack of supplies of suitable coal; and whether he has any information on the matter?

Mr. FOOT: I have made inquiries and I am assured, on behalf of the Yorkshire coalowners, that there is no shortage of suitable supplies of Yorkshire coal for the export market.

Mr. SMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen correspondence from the Yorkshire collieries to exporters stating that they would not supply coal, and shipowners at Hull are complaining that orders are being lost to this country?

Mr. FOOT: The hon. Member's information is contrary to that which I have received from the coalowners. If he will give me specific instances, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

Mr. SMITH: I am quite willing to do that. Have the executive board of the amalgamated districts applied to the
central council for a bigger allocation of coal on account of the changed circumstances?

Mr. FOOT: It would be perfectly open to them to make that application, but I understand no application has been made.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not a fact that the allocation for Yorkshire and other districts is entirely in the hands of the central council of coalowners and it has nothing whatever to do with the Department?

Mr. FOOT: What the hon. Gentleman has said is correct. If there is any complaint as to allocation, they can make direct application to the central council.

Mr. McSHANE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Aldridge Colliery near Walsall is closing down for one week thus throwing out of work 800 men while at the same time about 70 men at Messrs. Lambert Brothers, Tube Works, Green Lane, Walsall, are said to be thrown out of work for lack of coal supply; and if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. FOOT: I have made inquiries this morning, and I am informed that the Aldridge Colliery is closed down, but that it will re-open on Thursday next, 1st October, when the new allocation period commences. I am also informed that immediately it was known that Messrs. Lambert Brothers were short of coal as a result of the closing down of Aldridge Colliery, another colliery in the district offered them supplies of other coal of the class to which they were accustomed. This offer was not accepted.

Mr. McSHANE: While thanking the Minister for the trouble that he is taking, I would ask him whether, in cases like this, it would not be possible, where the quota has been run out and where firms are getting coal from collieries like that, an arrangement could not be come to whereby a week or two in advance the colliery concerned would inform the firm so that ample time would be given them to go elsewhere for a supply?

Mr. FOOT: It is very largely a question of arrangement between one colliery and another. In this case I assume that the colliery concerned produced more coal than it was allowed, and that it had this difficulty at the end of the quota period.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does my hon. Friend not think that it is time to repeal these notional ideas?

Mr. SHINWELL: Would the Secretary for Mines state what the actual facts of the situation are, and whether it is not the case that the question of allocation to the various collieries is entirely a matter for the colliery owners themselves and does not come within the purview of the Mines Department?

Mr. FOOT: I do not think I indicated anything to the contrary. I gave the information that was obtained for me in answer to the question. It is open, of course, for any adjustment to be made in the district itself, or as between the district and the central committee, by the coalowners themselves.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Is the Minister aware that there is a shortage of domestic coal in the Midlands and that the price is going up to the domestic consumer?

Mr. McSHANE: Do we understand from the answer of the Minister that the tube works concerned could, if they cared, have obtained sufficient coal in order to open yesterday instead of closing down?

Mr. FOOT: The information I have received is that coal of a quality to which they were accustomed was immediately offered to them, but that the offer was not accepted.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

HOLIDAYS ARBOAD.

Mr. GODFREY WILSON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his statistical department can draw up a rough estimate of the annual amount spent oversea by British subjects holiday-making on the Continent; and will he consider means of discouraging the expenditure involved so that the adverse pull upon our oversea balance may be reduced?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I regret that, owing to insufficient information, no such estimate can be made. This element has always been included in a general miscellaneous heading in the estimated trade balance. As regards the latter part of the question, my right hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech broadcast on 21st September appealed to British nationals to refrain from taking holidays abroad, an appeal which I am sure all Members of the House will reinforce.

BRITISH TREASURY CREDITS (UNITED STATES AND FRANCE).

Major MILNER: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give details of the special conditions of borrowing to which the credit of £80,000,000 was subject?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The hon. and gallant Member misunderstands the position. There were no conditions such as those imputed by him. No Government is in a position to insist on foreign countries lending large sums to this country, and therefore we had to consider what steps on our part were best calculated to secure the subscription abroad of a loan on the necessary scale.

Major MILNER: Are we to understand that the offer was made that unemployment cuts would be made if a loan was given to this country? Is that the position?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Member must understand nothing of the sort.

Major MILNER: What other interpretation can the House and the country place on the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? [interruption.]

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We really cannot have a debate on this question.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (FRANCE).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of capital of War Debt owing by France to Great Britain on the 1st September, 1931; the rate of interest payable on that Debt at the same date; the amount of interest which had been paid by France up to that date: and the amount of capital, if any, which had been repaid by that date?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The amount of the net War Debt of France to Great Britain as at the date of the Funding Agreement of 16th July, 1926 (Command Paper
2692), was £600 millions. The annuities fixed by the agreement do not distinguish between repayment of capital and interest. The total amount paid under the agreement to date is 243,625,000.

ENGLISH AND GERMAN BANKS (TRANSACTIONS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount in English sterling of the transactions between English and German bankers affected by the stand-still agreement, signed by representatives of the Bank of England and other bankers on the 14th September, and operating as between the 1st September, 1931, and 29th February, 1932?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Approximately £70,000,000.

JUDICIAL OFFICERS.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider taking steps to make it possible for recorders and other minor judicial officials to agree voluntarily to surrender a part of their emoluments during the present crisis on the terms that no Income Tax or Sur-tax is assessed upon the part so voluntarily surrendered to the national Exchequer?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The necessary arrangements have already been made, or are now in train, for a reduction of the emoluments of all such judicial officers as are in receipt of remuneration chargeable to the Exchequer. But, as regards the judicial officials referred to, I am not sure that I understand exactly the purport of the question, particularly as recorders are not in general paid out of the Exchequer. As my hon. and learned Friend is no doubt aware there is no provision in the Income Tax law for giving relief from Income Tax in respect of any voluntary gift which a taxpayer may make out of his income.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. WEST: 39
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the total actual income assessed for income Tax and Surtax in 1922–23 and 1929–30; and the net produce of those taxes and the effective rate per £;
(2) the amount of revenue he expects from Income Tax and Surtax during the
current year; and what, approximately, will be the effective rate per £ of the actual incomes assessed;
(3) what were the total incomes assessed for Surtax, and the net tax paid thereon, in 192e4–25 and 1929–30 or the last available period?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The latest statistical information regarding the incomes assessed to Income Tax and Surtax for past years will be found in the Income Tax and Surtax sections of the 73rd Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper No. 3802). As regards the current year I cannot at present add anything to my Budget statement.

Mr. WEST: Is it not a fact that the actual income assessed during this period has increased by £200,000,000, while the effective rate per pound has decreased from 2s. 6d.to 1s. 10d.?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the hon. Member will look at the publications to which I have referred him, he will find the facts and figures.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (INCOME TAX).

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the purchase some time ago by a co-operative society of a chain of 100 prosperous shops in and around Liverpool upon whose profits Income Tax used to be paid; and can he give an estimate of the resultant loss to the Exchequer?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have no information as to the transaction in question.

DOUBLE TAXATION (BELIEF).

Major NATHAN: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements have been made with the Government of any foreign State with a view to the granting of relief from double taxation as mentioned in Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1930; and whether any such declaration as is referred to in that Section has been made or is intended?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Arrangements under Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1930, for relief from double taxation on certain profits arising through an agency, have been. made with the Government of Sweden in an Agreement dated 6th July, 1931 (printed as Treaty Series No. 31
(1931), Command Paper 3923). The necessary Declaration will be submitted for the approval of His Majesty in Council in due course. An agreement with another foreign Government is practically settled, and negotiations with other countries are proceeding or will shortly be commenced.

Mr. KELLY: May we have the name of the other Government; or is it to be kept a secret?

Mr. SNOWDEN: There is no reason for secrecy in this matter, except that agreement has not yet been concluded. An agreement with Switzerland is on the point of being settled.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.

Mr. NAYLOR: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate amount of annual Budget expenditure on stores, material, and foodstuffs that would be affected by an increase in commodity prices?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The amount provided in this year's Estimates for direct expenditure on stores, material and foodstuffs is approximately £30,000,000.

Mr. NAYLOR: May I ask what additional taxation will be necessary to meet the increase in the price of these commodities which might arise from the imposition of a tariff?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is a hypothetical question.

GOLD STANDARD (AMENDMENT) ACT.

Mr. WISE: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any penalty is imposed against breaches of the orders already issued by the Treasury under the Gold Standard (Amendment) Act; if so, what is the penalty; and whether any cases have yet occurred in which penalties have been incurred?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Breaches of the Orders in question constitute a misdemeanour punishable on indictment by fine or imprisonment. In reply to the last part of the question I am not aware of any cases.

Mr. WISE: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whose responsibility it is to enforce these orders? Is it the responsibility of the police, of the Attorney-General, or of whom? What
steps are being taken to see that the orders are being observed?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If any case comes to the notice of the Treasury, proper action will be taken.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. WISE: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount the capital value in pounds of the National Debt has been diminished in the last seven years ended March, 1931, and by what amount it has been increased by the recent borrowing undertaken to maintain the gold value of the pound, assuming dollars and francs at their average exchange value in London on 25th September, 1931?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is £228 millions. With regard to the second part, as I stated in reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 24th September, there is no question of any real loss since the liabilities in gold currencies are covered by holdings in actual gold.

Mr. WISE: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say by what amount national indebtedness has been increased? What were the gold reserves before the credits were obtained?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is no part of the question on the Paper. My reply to that is covered in the reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain this: When we borrow pounds sterling and have to repay when there is a deterioration in the pound, how can there be no loss? [Interruption.]

Mr. WISE: In view of the importance and the uncertainty of the details of these transactions, is the Chancellor prepared to lay papers setting out exactly the contracts and correspondence in which the Government have engaged?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Certainly not.

Mr. WISE: In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the replies given, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again on the earliest possible occasion.

GOLD RESERVES.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the most recent figures regarding the gold reserves held by the United States of America and France; what proportion these holdings are of the total gold reserve of the world; and by what amount the holdings of France and the United States have been augmented during the last three months?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The total monetary gold in the United States on the 9th September was $5,000,000,000, including some $350,000,000 estimated to be in active circulation. The increase since the 10th June was $197,000,000. The French gold reserve on the 18th September was 58,575 millions of francs, an increase of 2,050 millions since the 19th June. The total gold held by the two countries is thus $7,295,000,000 (21,499,000,000 at par), and has increased in three months by $277,000,000 (257,000,000). The total monetary gold in the world may be estimated at nearly $12,000,000,000, so that these two countries hold just over 60 per cent. of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TARIFF TRUCE.

Mr. DAY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether reports have been received from the two committees that were set up to deal with the draft convention for a tariff truce; and whether he will make a statement as to the further progress that has been made?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure what committees the hon. Member has in mind, but, as the House has already been informed, the second conference summoned to deal with the matter were unable to agree upon a date for putting the Convention into force.

IMPORTED LIQUID MILK.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any liquid milk is being imported into this country and, if so, the quantity so imported to the nearest convenient date?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The only fresh liquid milk imported into the United Kingdom is from the Irish Free State and mainly over the land boundary
into Northern Ireland. During the first eight months of this year 30,484 cwts. of fresh milk was so imported. In addition, a small quantity, 2,396 cwts., of unsweetened preserved milk, other than condensed and powdered milk, was imported into the United Kingdom.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a campaign in England to drink more milk?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the Noble Lady would lend her assistance to a campaign in favour of drinking anything, I am sure it would succeed.

MERCHANDISE MARKS.

Major BRAITHWAITE: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in the national emergency, he will consider making an order for all retailers to mark clearly on the outside any foreign goods stating that they are imported, and the date of their importation, in order to encourage the buying of home-produced goods by the public?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no power under existing legislation to make a general order of this nature. Under the Merchandise Marks Acts numerous classes and descriptions of imported goods, including many articles in common use already have to bear an indication of their origin on sale or exposure for sale and this together with the widespread practice of marking British products as such, as for example, in the case of foodstuffs, with the national mark, must assist purchasers in exercising their preference for them.

Major BRAITHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that foreign goods are often marked in the most obscure places, and the public cannot possibly determine by looking at things in a shop window whether they are of British or foreign extraction? Can he not make some revision of it so that people can see what they are buying?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that I can accept that. The Act lays down that goods have to be marked in a way that is clear. Every order that has been made has been carefully considered by the Committee in order to see that the marking is clear, and all these orders have, in fact, been before the House.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these goods are only marked on the boxes that bring them in and, in view of the absolute necessity that election eggs should be fresh, will he see that they are properly stamped?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that is is very difficult to get convictions under the Act? I am thinking particularly of the words "or otherwise acted innocently."

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think so. After all, the great thing is that you should get the marking done under the order and most people, once the law is in force, if it command common assent, abide by it.

IRON AND STEEL TRADE (CONTRACT, SOUTH AFRICA).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that an order for 6,250 tons of steel sleepers was offered for tender by the South African railways in August last, and that the order was secured by a German firm; and whether any steps are contemplated by the Government to improve the competitive power of British steel manufacturers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do everything in their power to assist the export trades of this country.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any likelihood of assisting this important industry in the near future by means of a tariff?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the circumstances with regard to this contract and see whether British money was used to finance the German manufacturers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I certainly should decline to give an answer across the Floor of the House to that supplementary question, but I presume that the hon. Member who has put it has grounds for saying what he has said.

Mr. TAYLOR: I am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman will investigate the matter.

MOTOR INDUSTRY.

Mr. PERRY: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the declaration of the Austin Motor Company of a dividend of 100 per cent. on their ordinary shares for the year ended 31st July, 1931; and whether this company has made an appeal for an extension of the protection already given to the motor industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the declaration of the dividend in question, but have no knowledge of any such appeal for an increase in duty as the hon. Member refers to.

Mr. PERRY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any appeal for an increase in the protective duties from the workers of this firm, who suffered a reduction of wages during the same period?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know what happened when my predecessor was at the Board of Trade, but I have not received any appeals for any increase.

Mr. REMER: On a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: There clearly is no point of Order.

Mr. REMER: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Gentleman, who has referred to a reduction of wages, makes himself responsible for the question?

Mr. PERRY: It is signed by the firm.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. EDE: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total existing tonnage of British sailing and mechanically-propelled vessels, respectively, built up to 31st December, 1921, and since that date, respectively; and what steps he proposes to take to secure the scrapping of obsolescent vessels and their replacement by new vessels?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: According to Lloyd's Register of Shipping the total tonnage of steam and motor vessels of 100 tons gross and over owned in Great Britain and Ireland on the 30th June,4 1931, was 20,193,677 tons gross; of this total 11,183,182 tons were built before
July, 1921. Comparative figures for sailing vessels are not available. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the report of the committee appointed by my predecessor to inquire into the economic factors involved in the disposal of old ships and their replacement by new. In view of this report I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

FINANCE AND INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is now proposed to publish the evidence given before the Macmillan Committee?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: This evidence is in the Press and will be published very shortly.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that even if the evidence is published-the hon. and gallant Member who asked the question will understand it?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Real Virginian courtesy.

FOOD PRICES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to issue any special instructions to the Food Council with a view to preventing profiteering: and whether it is intended to add to the powers of this body?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No such instructions are necessary. I am keeping in closest touch with the position as to food prices and I should not, of course, hesitate to use the services of the Food Council if it was found expedient to do so. It will, however, be appreciated that what is required at present is day to day review by officers specially assigned for the purpose of keeping the Government fully informed as to the current trend of prices rather than the investigations into particular problems which are undertaken by the Food Council. In this review, as the Prime Minister stated yesterday, the Government is receiving valuable assistance and co-operation from representatives of the trades concerned. As re-
gards the question of powers, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) of which I am sending him a copy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the answer to the last part of the question, are we to understand—it was not quite clear yesterday—that the powers under the Gold Standard (Amendment) Act can be used in this case?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like that question to be put down specifically. I think the answer is "No" Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it down specifically.

Mr. McSHANE: In cases where it is proved that profiteering is taking place, what are the actual steps which are to be taken?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a very hypothetical case. [Interruption.] Certainly it is. Do let us be fair in this matter. I ought to say that the Government of the country have had the most consistent co-operation hitherto from the trade of this country, and I have no evidence of exploitation.

Mr. SHINWELL: Do I understand from the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has just given that according to the information in his possession there has been no increase at all in food prices?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I did not say that. I was particularly careful. I am going to answer a question about that in a moment. What I said was that there was no evidence of any sort or kind of exploitation. On the contrary, prices have been kept down in many cases considerably below replacement value.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: In view of the anxiety that is being felt at the moment in thousands of working class homes regarding the rise in the price of food, and if that should happen, what action is the Minister prepared to take to stop profiteering at once?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Perry.

Mr. PERRY: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage of
increase in the wholesale prices since 19th September, 1931, of wheat, flour, butter, bacon and tinned goods?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed that imported wheat has risen by about 20 per cent. since 19th September. The standard quotation of flour has not increased but the tendency has been to make the standard quotation more effective than previously. All grades of butter showed a percentage increase of about 5 per cent., bacon prices were unchanged, and some brands of imported canned goods showed varying advances in price.

Mr. PERRY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now admitted that the advance of 2s. 3d. a sack in the cost of flour took place last Tuesday, and, further, has his attention been drawn to the North of England Wholesale Grocers' Association, who have already advanced prices and issued instructions to retailers that they are justified in advancing prices from 7½ per cent. to 25 per cent. on certain goods?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to the first part of the question—the price of flour—I have seen the representative of the millers this morning, and the answer which I have given is the answer which covers the whole of the trade. It is exactly what I have stated. The price of flour—the official quotation —was 20s. There has been no advance in the price of flour, although that price has become more effective over all.

Mr. PERRY: May I have an answer to the second part of my question; and has the right hon. Gentleman seen the representative of the firm whose name was quoted in the Press last Friday on the details I gave him?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Really, if the hon. Gentleman has a complaint against any particular firm I think the least he could do would be to send it to me. I have secured the co-operation, not only of wholesalers, but of the retail organisations, including the co-operatives throughout the country, and, if there is a complaint that a particular firm is not carrying out the general policy, I sincerely hope the hon. Gentleman, if he knows of it, will send it to me and enable the associations concerned to take it up in the first instance.

Mr. PERRY: May I have an answer with regard to the North of England Wholesale Grocers' Association?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have just answered the question. I have absolutely no knowledge of it. My information is that retail prices have not been affected, except in one commodity, broadly speaking, anywhere, and, if the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, I hope he will send me particulars.

Mr. PERRY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read this document.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: In the event of the price of the necessaries of life going up—

Mr. SPEAKER: It is of no use, after a, question of this kind has been put down, the hon. Member asking what may happen in the future.

Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. The Prime Minister yesterday said that if prices rose he would take certain steps.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has got the answer he wanted.

Mr. McSHANE: He has not told us the steps.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEAMEN (ENGAGEMENTS, SOUTH SHIELDS).

Mr. EDE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the numbers of British subjects and aliens, respectively, who have been signed on at South Shields for ships' crews during the last year for which figures are available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the numbers of engagements of seamen, British and foreign, at South Shields during 1930 and the first two quarters of 1931.

Mr. EDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to secure that a larger proportion of British seamen are employed from this port?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The statement is rather a long one, and I think that, if the hon. Gentleman studies it. he will see that there is very small variation.

Mr. EDE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something better than his predecessor?

Engagement of Seamen at South Shields for Service in British Foreign-going Ships during 1930 andthe first half of 1931.


—
British other than Asiatics and Africans.
Foreigners other than Asiatics and Africans.
Asiatics and Africans, British and Foreign.
Total.


1930.
No.
Per cent
No.
Per cent
No.
Per cent



1st Quarter
…
…
…
2,977
91
89
3
193
6
3,259


2nd Quarter
…
…
…
3,497
93
125
3
154
4
3,776


3rd Quarter
…
…
…
3,140
91
130
4
175
5
3,445


4th Quarter
…
…
…
2,279
91
95
4
134
5
2,508


Total
…
…
…
11,893
92
439
3
656
5
12,988


1931.









1st Quarter
…
…
…
2,254
91
114
5
108
4
2,476


2nd Quarter
…
…
…
3,119
90
141
4
225
6
3,485


The above figures relate to engagements and not to individual seamen; if a seaman were engaged twice during any period he would be counted twice in the totals for that period. The proportion of British among the Asiatics and Africans cannot be stated exactly but is probably considerable.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CEREMONIAL UNIFORM.

Dr. HASTINGS: 18.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the annual cost to the nation of the ceremonial uniform worn on occasions by certain regiments of His Majesty's Army?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The extra annual cost of providing ceremonial uniform for the Household Cavalry and the Brigade of Guards is approximately £33,000.

Dr. HASTINGS: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the money could be better spent at the present time?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.

CHIEF OF THE IMPERIAL GENERAL STAFF.

Viscount CRANBORNE: 19.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a decision has now been reached regarding the appointment of a Chief of the Imperial General Staff when (Sir George Milne's tenure of this position ends?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir. The late Government decided that, in view of the forthcoming Disarmament Conference, it

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I always try to do better than try predecessor.

Following is the table:

would not be in the public interest for any change to be made in the immediate future. They therefore invited the Field Marshal to accept an extension of his appointment by one year from February next. His Majesty's present Government have endorsed this action and are glad to be able to utilise the ripe experience of this distinguished officer both in connection with the programme of economies necessarily imposed on the Army by the exigencies of the financial situation and during the course of the proceedings of the Disarmament Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (ASBESTOSIS).

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an inquest at Ilford last week on a young woman who had been employed eight years before at an asbestos factory at Barking, the verdict being death due to asbestosis accelerated by tuberculosis; and whether he will amend the scheme for asbestos factories made under the Silicosis (Asbestosis) Act, 1930, which provides a period shorter than eight years between the employment and the certification of asbestosis,
since it is now proved that once the lungs are affected the disease is incurable and, in the majority of cases, fatal?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to this case. The scheme for the asbestos industry does not apply to persons who had ceased to be employed in the industry at the time it was made, and no compensation would, therefore, have been payable in this case, quite apart from the time limit provision to which the hon. Member refers in his question. As regards the question of the time limit, it has not been found practicable in any of the schemes that are in force under the Act to dispense with some provision of the kind, but the Department will discuss the point further with the industry and consider whether some modification can be introduced into the scheme.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been six Inquests in the last two years due to asbestosis, and that at the present time there are 50 to 60 girls and young men employed in this factory attending the Victoria Park Hospital, all of them with traces of asbestosis; and is he aware that doctors now are of opinion that once you get asbestosis you get it for good? Are these facts known to the Home Office? The matter is of extreme importance.

Mr. STANLEY: The whole question of asbestosis has been very recently discussed in this House and an agreement was reached at the time as to a limit of three years. My right hon. Friend has stated that he is prepared to take the matter up again with the object of discussing modifications.

Mr. KELLY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend if we can have circulated to Members of the House the conditions attached to the Order in regard to asbestosis?

Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making the order apply to everybody working about the factory?

Mr. STANLEY: I do not think that arises out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

ORGANISATION.

Mr. DAY: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the suggestions that have been made by various county and borough authorities that a national criminal investigation department under the direction of Scotland Yard should be inaugurated; and can he make a statement?

Mr. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend is not aware that any such suggestions have been made by county and borough police authorities.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the appointment of a departmental committee to inquire into it?

Mr. STANLEY: No.

WOMEN POLICE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 22.
asked the Home Secretary the total cost in respect of women police; whether it is proposed to increase their number; and what will be the cost of the increase?

Mr. STANLEY: The pay of the police women in the forces in England and Wales amounted to £29,760 in 1929–30. My right hon. Friend regrets he is not in a position to give the cost of rent allowances, uniform, or other incidental charges. A beginning has been made with the increase of the Metropolitan police women from 50 to 100, which was decided upon some considerable time ago. He cannot yet say whether this plan will be modified, and, if so, to what extent, as part of the measures of economy now under consideration.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my hon. Friend not say whether in these days of economy this new and dainty luxury is quite unnecessary?

Viscountess ASTOR: That is a matter of opinion.

MOTOR POLICE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 23.
asked the Home Secretary the total cost in respect of the motor police and the necessary cars and motor-cycles; and whether it is proposed to continue or to increase the existing motor police and at what cost?

Mr. STANLEY: The amount of grant paid from the Road Fund in respect of the provision and maintenance of the vehicles in 1931 is about £54,000. A further payment will be made later in the year in respect of vehicles provided since 1st April last, but this is not likely to be of large amount. The grant for the year will ultimately be adjusted according to the mileages run in the year, but the effect on the grant cannot, of course, be estimated until the actual mileages have been ascertained. The necessary personnel has been found for the most part without additions to the establishments of the forces, and the charges for, garage accommodation and other incidentals are not expected to be heavy. My right hon. Friend cannot, however, give any estimate at present. The whole scheme will be subject to review when it has been in operation a little longer, but, as at present advised, my right hon. Friend contemplates its continuance without any very material alteration.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the need for economy, would it not be far better to employ these police catching burglars than in joy riding?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S OFFICE.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 25.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the staff of the Public Trustee's office have for some time been pressing for the appointment of a joint committee to review the classification of certain posts in that Department; and whether he will now take steps to ensure that the local Whitley machinery will be enabled to function on this matter?

Major ELLIOT: The further consideration of the classification of a limited number of posts in the Office of the Public Trustee is awaiting the decision of the Government on certain recommendations made by the Royal Commission. There would therefore be no advantage in the appointment of a joint committee at the present moment, and the staff side of the Departmental Whitley Council have already been so informed.

Mr. BROWN: Is not the hon. and gallant Member aware that the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil
Service does not modify the main structure of the service, and that, therefore, whatever happens to the report, this issue will still remain? In these circumstances, why cannot we get on with the job?

Major ELLIOT: I cannot add anything to the answer that I have given.

TEMPORARY WOMEN STAFF.

Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the House an assurance that he will give favourable consideration to the establishment recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, so as to ease the burdens of the temporary women staff forced at present to face increased unemployment benefit contributions in addition to Income Tax payments and wage reductions?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer on this subject which I gave on the 17th September to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Mr. W. J. Brown).

Mr. W. J. BROWN: A week or so has elapsed since then, and in the meantime discharges are taking place. I ask whether the Financial Secretary can give some indication as to when the Government will be in a position to make up their minds on this recommendation?

Major ELLIOT: That is a question which it is beyond the competence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to answer.

Dr. PHILLIPS: May we know to whom we may address a question upon the matter if we cannot address it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (MAIL CONTRACTS).

Mr. FREEMAN: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider his decision in regard to contracts made for carrying British mails abroad, and insist on a fair-wage clause in all future contracts?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No, Sir. I do not propose to make any change in the policy adopted by my predecessors, as regards this question.

Mr. FREEMAN: Are any conditions as to labour and wages laid down in these contracts?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must have notice of that question. I have nothing to add to the full reply which was given to a previous question.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it not a fact that under the Standing Orders all these contracts have to be approved by the House of Commons.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is so.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is it not the case that by sanctioning this blackleg labour—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Persons resident in the Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green on the Registers of Employment Exchanges.


Date.
Men.
Women.
Juveniles.
Total.


1928.






16th July
…
…
2,270
489
57
2,816


13th August
…
…
2,411
532
122
3,065


17tb September
…
…
2,403
319
35
2,757


1929.






15th July
…
…
2,274
404
47
2,725


12th August
…
…
2,224
388
68
2,680


16th September
…
…
2,194
260
21
2,475


1930.






14th July
…
…
3,939
668
86
4,693


11th August
…
…
4,210
692
128
5,030


15th September
…
…
4,031
535
95
4,661


1931.






13th July
…
…
5,633
1,276
129
7,038


17th August
…
…
5,724
1,322
172
7,218


14th September
…
…
5,307
1,212
142
6,661

Oral Answers to Questions — PIRELLI'S CABLE COMPANY, SOUTH SHIELDS.

Mr. EDE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the hours worked on the unemployment grants scheme at South Shields for which Messrs. Pirelli hold the contract?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As stated in a letter sent yesterday to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, the Unemployment Grants Committee have been in communication with the authority responsible for this scheme. Overtime has been worked for special reasons but it has now been arranged that it will not be continued except possibly in the case of a few highly skilled men and of certain others working in tidal waters.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BETHNAL GREEN.

Major NATHAN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed men, women and juveniles in Bethnal Green at any convenient date in July, August and September, 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931, respectively?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Mr. EDE: In view of the large number of unemployed in this district and the large proportion of them who are capable of doing this skilled work and the work in tidal waters, will the Minister of Labour see if overtime cannot be entirely stopped on this scheme?

Sir H. BETTERTON: In the answer sent to the hon. Member it is stated that instructions have been issued to watch this matter closely and to report at once if there is any real need for the engagement of any man over the normal hours. I will see that the point put by the hon. Member is borne carefully in mind.

SUNDERLAND.

Dr. PHILLIPS: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons now drawing unemployment benefit in Sunderland
will come under the proposed provisions for transitional benefit, separating them into men, women, boys and girls?

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 21st September, 1931, there were on the registers of the Employment Exchanges at Sunderland, Pallion and Southwick-on-Wear 5,599 persons (including 544 women) with claims authorised for transitional benefit. In addition there were at 14th September, 1931, 6,474 persons (including 336 women) in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit who had received 156 days or more in their current benefit year. Juveniles under 18 are not entitled to transitional benefit.

Viscountess ASTOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many women have been employed in Sunderland since the hon. Lady has represented that constituency?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT POLICY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what measures he proposes for the encouragement of agriculture, husbandry, and the raising of stock in view of the new economic situation; and, in particular, what measures are proposed to add to the acreage devoted to arable farming?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 14th September to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Minister not aware yet that the whole situation has radically altered since 14th September? Surely we are going to get some declaration of policy?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I can add nothing to the reply.

Major COLFOX: Is it not a fact—[Interruption].

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the Government decision not to proceed with the agricultural credits from this country for the benefit of Central European farmers, the sum of £120,000 per annum thereby saved may
be allocated to the help of the hard-pressed arable and cereal cultivators in our own country?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I regret that in present circumstances I am not in a position to provide funds for the purpose suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (CENSUS RETURNS).

Major GRAHAM POLE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the figures of the recent census are yet available; and whether he can state the numbers of Hindus, Mussulmans, and other religious communities?

Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (Treasurer of the Household): My right hon. Friend is sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the figures so far received. These do not include the information asked for in the last part of the question for all India but it has appeared in Press telegrams and my right hon. Friend will no doubt receive it very shortly. He will communicate it to the hon. and gallant Member when it reaches him.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (BASEMENT DWELLINGS, LONDON).

Mr. DAY: 32.
asked the Minister of Health what investigations have been made into the number and description of occupants of basement dwellings in different parts of London; and will he make a statement of any such investigations and the conclusions and recommendations arrived at?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. E. D. Simon): The report of the county medical officer of the London County Council for the year 1929, and the report of the school medical officer of the council for the year 1930 contain accounts of the investigations which have been carried out. The question of what further steps, if any, can usefully be taken to deal with unhealthy basements is, I understand, engaging the active consideration of the London County Council and the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils.

Mr. DAY: Is it not the case that many of these families are living in one room? [Interruption.]

Mr. SIMON: An investigation is proceeding into this matter.

Mr. DAY: Is not that the fact; does not the report say so? [Interruption.]

Mr. MILLS: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the conduct of the uneducated hooligans opposite.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF (LEYTON).

Mr. SORENSEN: 33.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of applicants from Leyton and from West Leyton who applied for relief during the past four weeks; the number granted relief; the total number of recipients of out-door relief during the last of those four weeks; and the number who were only granted indoor relief?

Mr. SIMON: The returns made to my Department relate to counties and county boroughs as a whole, and for those areas show the numbers of persons receiving poor relief on specified dates and not the number of applicants. My right hon. Friend regrets that the desired information is therefore not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY PERFORMANCES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) BILL,

"to enable the existing practice as to cinematograph and musical entertainments on Sundays to be continued temporarily and to make temporary provision as to the enforcement of the enactments relating to Sunday observance," presented by Mr. Stanley; supported by Secretary Sir Herbert Samuel and the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 230.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL ECONOMY BILL.

[ALLOTTED DAY.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish to support the Third Reading of the Bill. It is a Measure designed to meet an emergency and an emergency that demands quick and decisive action. The detailed provisions of the Bill have been debated at length in Committee, and my purpose is to commend it to the House on general grounds which in my judgment, and I believe in that of many Members of the House, are overwhelming in their cogency. The Debates on the Bill have produced a cascade of criticism of one kind or another. They have shown very considerable vigour in denunciation by right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench, but the vigour in denunciation has been accompanied by a singular dearth of any constructive proposals. If anyone present at our Debates had not known previously that we were face to face with a great crisis, I do not think that he could possibly have gathered the fact from the speeches made on the opposite side of the House. I do not think that he would have guessed from the speeches made from the Front Opposition Bench that we had to meet a huge deficit in the present year and a still greater deficit in the year to come. What is more, I am quite sure that he would not have realised the fact that, if these economies were rejected, adequate alternatives would have to be found in order to fill the gap.
I take, first of all, one alternative suggestion which was put forward by the hon. Gentleman the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In his opinion the Government have been entirely wrong in trying to find means, both by economies and by taxes, to meet the enormous deficits which confront us this year and next year. He was of opinion that the situation ought not to have been met by economies and by taxes, and that it would have been better met, by continu-
ing to borrow on a very large scale. He said that there was no need to fear inflation as a result of such borrowing. The hon. Gentleman made that speech 10 days ago. I wonder if he would repeat that statement to-day. To-day there is 20 per cent. of inflation and the hon. Member should realise, if anyone does, that a dangerous degree of inflation, a degree that may ultimately mean the destruction of the currency, may be reached when you have an unbalanced Budget coming on top of an existing substantial degree of inflation due to other causes.
There is another question which I would ask the hon. Gentleman if lie were in his place. From whom would lie propose to borrow He, or at any rate many of his friends, stigmatise existing investors in War Loan as rentiers, as people who live on unearned income and practically as enemies of the people to be treated as such. If he and his colleagues were in power again, I wonder would he anticipate much success in inviting a new set of investors to take up the same position and to be the target of similar attacks. Another alternative suggestion which has been offered is the suggestion of a tariff. I myself believe that a tariff is necessary—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss the question of a tariff on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall keep strictly within the bounds of order, but subject to your Ruling, Sir, I would point out that I am only endeavouring to show that the passage of this Bill is absolutely necessary, because all the alternatives to it are ruled out. I am not desirous, at all, of entering into old controversies. I believe a tariff to be necessary from the point of view of the balance of trade, but I do not wish to discuss it further. All I want to point out is that action in an emergency of this kind has to be quick and decisive if it is to be successful. I trust there is no one in this House who is not an optimist in this sense, that he feels confident that this country will surmount the present emergency, but it is obvious that in order to do so quick and decisive action is necessary. For that reason, if for no other, the tariff cannot be considered as an alternative to this Bill.
As a commentary on the action of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I may also point out that we have heard circumstantial reports to the effect that they themselves favoured a tariff as an alternative to this Measure. We have heard circumstantial details such as that the majority in favour was 15 to 5, and all I would ask is, why in Heaven's name, if that were so, did they not put it into effect? The only reason that I can see is that they were frightened. They were scared out of their alternative proposal presumably by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then, if right hon. Gentlemen opposite disapprove of this Measure, what of the £56,500,000 of economies of which they did approve? There is no good in denying the fact, because it is on record that they gave their approval in principle to those economies. Then came the meeting with the committee of the Trades Union Congress. Some of my friends on this side and some people outside have criticised the Trades Union Congress. I do not. I think there is a great deal more to be said for them in connection with those negotiations than is generally understood, but at any rate the effect of that meeting was decisive. It frightened right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the second time. It frightened them clean off their economies, and, not only so, but it made them abandon any further attempt to meet the situation and was the cause of their resignations.
I ask hon. Members on the back benches opposite, in view of all that happened in connection with the late Government, what credence do they place in the denunciations to which they have listened during the last few days from Members on their own Front Bench? If they do place credence in those denunciations, it shows how extremely ready some people are to believe what they wish to believe. Do hon. Members opposite believe in denunciations such as that which we have heard so often from right hon. Gentlemen—as an excuse and an explanation for having given their assent in principle to these economies—namely, that the situation was all due to a bankers' ramp? [How. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That expression is cheered by hon. Members. What do they mean by a bankers' ramp? If they mean anything, they
mean that the bankers used a sudden emergency, unfairly, to drive some right hon. Gentlemen opposite into actions which were contrary to their better judgment.
The real course of affairs, as I should have imagined nearly everybody knows, was very different indeed. It is a matter of almost common knowledge that the bankers warned the late Government, months before the actual crisis took place, of what would be the consequences of their policy. The fact that they did so was evidenced by the speech last February of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not only so, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the ex-Ministers in that Cabinet, had their own Economic Council with whom to consult if they wished. It was a council consisting of economists of great reputation and of practical business men who are held in high respect not only for their success but for their ability. They could have gone to them for advice as to, whether the proposals that they received from the bankers were proper to accept or not. Therefore, to say that there was any misuse of a sudden necessity, or unfair use of it, completely disappears when the facts are considered. There was no stampede, and there was no ramp of any sort or kind.
The actual course of events proves, if it proves anything, that the former Ministers took fright again. They took fright at the dangers that they had previously neglected, they took fright at the situation which they had helped to create. Having taken fright, they were at first prepared to take the action which we know that they at first agreed to take, but afterwards failed to take. Three times they were weighed in the balance, and three times both their courage and their constancy was found wanting. It is for that reason, on the history of the plain facts, that I would ask hon. Members, not only on this side, but also on that side, whether they really attach value or credence either to the proposals, the denunciations, or the record of the gentlemen who are their leaders, I suppose, still.

Mr. BUCHANAN rose—

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member will be able to speak later. At the same time, when I listened to those
Debates, I also was tempted to ask myself what was the value of recriminations and squabblings in this House, and I agree that in an emergency like the present it does not get us a great deal "forarder." The attitude of this House to these emergency Measures has an effect which goes far beyond the actual results of what may be the passage or the rejection of this Bill, and I would ask hon. Members to look at this problem from an entirely different angle from that from which it has been generally viewed hitherto.
It seems to me that the amount of agreement on different sides of the House that there has been on most of these points is really very much more remarkable than the difference that has existed certainly upon one important detail, and that it is really much more fruitful for us to recognise what might be the effect of that agreement, what it might signify, than to over-emphasize a difference upon one point. Members of the last Government did in fact—and I am not saying this from controversy now—when they were in a position of very great difficulty and responsibility, and having the facts of the emergency to face, agreed to nine out of 10 of the actual economies and taxes which are proposed at the present moment.
I ask the House to recognise that an agreement of that kind may be of very great benefit to this country, not simply from the point of view of the passage of this Bill, not simply from the point of view of the emergency that this Bill is designed to meet, but also in view of the developments which are bound to come after this, and which not only this country has to face, but other countries as well. All Members of this House are, I am sure, quite well aware that this crisis is not only confined to this country, that not only Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are facing it at this moment, but that it confronts even Holland and that it will be confronting nearly every country in the world. And it is not a phase; it is not just a difficulty which can be surmounted and leave the world much as it was before.
These difficulties, with all their troubles and hardships, really are the pains that go before the birth of a new state of
affairs. [Interruption.] It is not Socialism necessarily, nor individualism. It is a new state of affairs, and it is a fact that everyone will be forced to recognise. Some of us distrust international agreements, but we have to recognise that within 10 years from now there will be a regime of international agreements on economics and finance surpassing and going beyond anything hitherto contemplated. It is not a matter of Socialism or of anti-Socialism; it is a mere fact that we have to look forward to, and, what is more, it is quite possible that they will surpass armaments in the attention that they will attract and in their inherent importance.
I recognise that it would be quite out of order on the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind to discuss any of these points that will have to be dealt with in detail, but it would be germane to mention, without discussing them, three things that may have an effect upon our action. Gold will have to be dealt with assuming that it continues to be a basis for currency and the medium of international payments; the international lending of capital will have to be dealt with, and once more there will probably be concerted action for preventing undue fluctuations in trade. I wish to impress upon the House that this kind of action which is coming, whether we wish it or not, will quite intimately affect the welfare of masses of the people in all the different countries. It will affect intimately employment and the standard of living, and I believe it will do so by way of prevention, rather than of remedy, of many of the troubles with which we are familiar to-day.
4.0 p.m.
I would ask hon. Members to mark this: Such developments are not a matter of choice. They will come whether we will or not, and people looking back some years hence will realise that they were the inevitable outcome of post-War conditions. In fact, it is only the jealousies and suspicions of nations and domestic squabblings within nations which have made the approach to them uncertain and fumbling up to now. But when this development comes, Great Britain, from her own position, her inherent power and her position as the national banker, will naturally be fitted to play a leading part, and possibly the most leading part. The ques-
tion is: Are we going to play it? Any Government faced with this emergency is bound to take quick and decisive action if it is to be successful. We ask the House to pass this Bill, not because we enjoy the provisions which are contained in it, but because of the greater necessities of the occasion which demand its passage. There has, in fact, been a very great extent of agreement in opinion among the different sections of the House with regard to it. Are we going to exaggerate the points of difference, or are we going to use and welcome the fact of there being so much agreement as there has been in order to enable this country to face the future and to gain the enormouse influence which we can have, if we are united upon essentials, in shaping the new era upon which the world is just entering.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken into the somewhat vague generalities with which he has entertained the House. I propose to deal with the Bill which, I believe, is now before the House for its Third Reading, and let there be no misunderstanding upon this point, that those on this side of the House oppose the Bill root and branch. The proposals which are contained in the Bill, and which were foreshadowed in the White Paper which accompanied its publication, were when issued sufficiently unjust and illogical before the recent alteration in the financial position of this country, but to-day, in the completely altered conditions brought about by the abandonment of the Gold Standard, we on this side of the House believe that there is no single argument which can be brought forward to justify this Bill. Indeed, the very arguments which have been advanced by the Government will now recoil upon their heads.
It is a curious reflection upon the mentality of the Government of this country that they are to-day pressing forward the final stage of a Bill which, barely three weeks ago, was introduced into this House as an emergency Measure to accomplish one purpose. That purpose was to save the Gold Standard. Intervening
circumstances have completely defeated that object; yet the Government are, apparently, wholly unconscious of the failure of their one purpose, and the one object of their existence. They refuse stubbornly to allow any reconsideration of the provisions of this Bill. That attitude of mind recalls to me the characteristics of that stubborn and stupid animal the mule which has been so aptly described, as this Government might be, as having no pride of parentage and no hope in posterity. Less than a fortnight ago we were told in this House by Member after Member of the Government that if we went off the Gold Standard everything would be altered; that this Bill was really a kind-hearted Measure intended to protect those with whom it dealt; that by means of these cuts the unemployed, the teachers, the armed Forces of the Crown and others who are affected, would have their payments made in sovereigns worth 20s. in gold, and that, to attain that end, it was surely a small thing to ask of them that they should accept a cut of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. in their salaries or wages.
Whatever justification there may have been for this Bill when it was first introduced, and up to 10 days ago, that justification vanished at the hour in which this country went off the Gold Standard. But the Government care for none of these things. They feel themselves bound to continue to foster that spirit of panic which they have so sedulously created, lest otherwise their whole creation and continued existence become a matter of ridicule throughout the country, and lest they lose the opportunity so eagerly sought by their capitalist supporters, to rush through these unjust cuts before the country wakes up to the significance of what has been done. To put it colloquially, in terms which may be understood by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, they want to get as far as they can in depressing the standard of living of the workers in this country while the going is good. [Interruption.] Several hon. Members opposite may get restless when they hear the truth. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have not heard it yet !"] Let me remind the House of the words which were used by the Prime Minister on 8th September, when the whole world was waiting with great anxiety to hear his statement as to the financial con-
dition of this country, and its power to stand up against any further drain of gold. He used these words:
One day it would have been 20s. and the next day 10s., and it would have tumbled without control. [Interruption.] I am not scaremongering; I am giving you some history. That happened in Berlin. What, then, would have happened?
The Prime Minister then proceeded to inform the world at large, and the inhabitants of this land in particular, that
War pensions, old age pensions, health and insurance benefits become worth, as they became in Germany, only the price of a newspaper. In Germany and Vienna people rushed to convert their whole life-savings into some tangible article, or offered everything they had for one square meal.
Then, after a few sentences, he proceeded in this way to describe the plight of this country:
We have to import a huge proportion of our food and raw materials. Our position, therefore, is far more delicate than that of countries which at one time or another have witnessed flights from their currency. Our people would have to endure far worse evils if only for a period the complicated position of credit and exchange, on which such importations depend, were to be thrown seriously out of gear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th September, 1931; cols. 21–23, Vol. 256.]
That was a deliberate and carefully considered statement designed to frighten the people of this country as to what would happen if we went off the Gold Standard. Our condition would be worse than that of Germany and Austria in their post-War troubles. But this was not enough. The financiers of the world might well read the Prime Minister's statement the next morning, but some of those who were asked to suffer by reason of the cuts in this Bill might miss it; so not only was the ether charged with similar statements, but the "talkies," too, were called in to the aid. The day before this House met—on 7th September—a picture of the Prime Minister was shown throughout the country holding an envelope with stamps amounting to 80 billion marks, and, at the same time, he explained the picture with these words:
If the country gets into straits, or if outside in the world it loses confidence, then the first to suffer will be the very poorest of the poor.
Not a very enlightening remark, as the poorest of the poor are always the first to suffer, and will always continue to be the first to suffer as long as the capitalist
regime lasts. Then he proceeded with these words:
I hold in my hand an envelope of a letter posted in Berlin and sent to England at the time the German credit was smashed. You will observe that the postage stamps upon it amount to the colossal sum of 80,000 million marks, a sum which was once equal to £4,000,000,000. That is the result of a smash in the credit of a country. Those of us who are now in power are not going to allow this country to sink into that deplorable position, and so I appeal to you all to do your bit.
A perfectly fantastic comparison which every financial authority in this country knew to be wholly unwarranted, but it was well and truly calculated to raise an atmosphere of panic in which legislation of this type might be passed without question or criticism, and, unfortunately, too well calculated to inspire those in other countries who had but a small knowledge of our financial position with a complete lack of confidence. It was to avoid this catastrophic alternative that we were told it was essential that these cuts should be made, and that the Government should be given the wide and unprecedented powers contained in this Bill. The pound must be saved at all costs, and by saving it the real value of salaries and benefits would be preserved and only 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. loss in purchasing power would be suffered by those who were affected. Though all this is completely changed, though the whole basis of the argument that these cuts were the kinder alternative has now completely disappeared, this Government remains as stubborn as ever, and proceeds with this Bill as if nothing had ever happened.
There was but one other argument that was brought forward to show that really all these people affected were no worse off than they were two years ago, owing to the fall in the cost-of-living. The fallacy of that argument has already been well demonstrated, but now it has become not only fallacious but entirely untrue. It is practically certain that before these cuts come to be felt with their full force by those who have to suffer them, the cost-of-living will have risen, and will be higher than two years ago by a very considerable percentage, and if this argument ever had any validity and it was really desired that these people should be no worse off than in 1929, then the same argument must now lead the Government to increase,
and not to decrease, the payments dealt with by this Bill. An argument of that type invented after the event in an attempt to justify some action taken for an entirely different reason often recoils on those who advance it, and in so doing demonstrates how unreal and artificial it always was.
I have dealt with the two points which were advanced in justification of these cuts by the Government and stressed throughout the length and breadth of this country by every means in their power. I have attempted to show the House that neither of them can have any relevance in the present financial circumstances of this country. What, then, is the reason for the Government now going forward with this emergency Bill? I ask the House to bear in mind that we are to-day asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill which is not only for the purpose of accomplishing these cuts, but which introduces machinery for bringing them about that is new and quite without precedent in the annals of this House. That machinery puts into the uncontrolled power of Ministers a right to take from a large number of people of this country varying sums of money to which these people are in many cases entitled by statutory agreement. This House has no power whatever to control the amounts of the money so taken, or the persons from whom it is taken beyond a very broad limitation of the classes in the Schedule. It is precisely the same as if an Act were to be passed saying that, there shall be a tax on incomes deductible at source and it were left to the Government and Ministers, without consultation with or control of this House, to settle the amount and the incidence of that taxation.
It was over three hundred years ago that such a course was declared by the Petition of Right to be unconstitutional, and it has so remained up to this very day. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the War?"] The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the Defence of the Realm Act. If he bad, he would know that the one vital thing which could not be done under that Act was to take money from the subject. That was so held unanimously by the House of Lords in the case of the Attorney-General and the Wiltshire Dairies. This departure from constitutional practice is one that the Govern-
ment must justify in addition to the proposed cuts which appear in the White Paper. That document does not in any sense bind the Government or the Ministers, either as to the amount or as to the incidence of the cuts which are there set out. The latter fact is well illustrated by the way that the Government have already yielded to pressure to alter a considerable number of the cuts.
I want, if I can, to get away from the atmosphere of panic that has been so deftly cast round these proposals by the Government, and to examine the possible reasons which may exist in the present financial circumstances for the passing of this Bill. The fact that a monetary crisis exists in the world and in this country does not necessarily call for panic legislation. This country has met crises before in its history and has dealt with them coolly and constitutionally. [An HON. MEMBER: "And without running away!"] The hon. Gentleman seems to take up the attitude, which has been the most remarkable attitude of the present Government, that they refuse to accept their own responsibility and try to shelter behind somebody else's responsibility. We as a party refuse to be stampeded into hasty and unwise legislation by catch words and phrases manufactured to disguise the true issues before the country by a Tory party which has always insolently abrogated to itself the sole claim to patriotic motive.
There seem to me to be three possible reasons which hon. Gentlemen opposite might advance for the passage of this Bill. I propose to deal with each one shortly, and to attempt to show that each reason is unsatisfactory and baseless. [HON. MEMBERS: "Circulate them!"] I am afraid that if I circulated them, hon. Gentlemen opposite might fail to understand them. First, it might be said that we are bound in honour to carry through these proposals as the financiers who helped us to raise the £80,000,000 credits were given to understand that we should do so. On 14th September, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health made this statement to the House:
it was the duty of the foreign bankers, when approached, to state under what conditions they thought it possible to raise the money.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th September, 1931; col. 639, Vol. 256.]
If money is raised on conditions, as the House knows, the borrower is generally bound, morally at least, to carry out those conditions. I do not think that any one has yet told us what those conditions were, or whether we are morally bound by them; and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us categorically what are the conditions that he mentioned in his speech of 14th September, and how far we are bound morally to see that those conditions are carried into effect.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing the issue. It is perfectly obvious to what my observations referred on that occasion. The conditions were not conditions of a bargain; they were the conditions under which the bankers who had to raise the money thought it would be possible to do so in their markets. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) pointed out to the House in a very lucid speech on Friday, there were countless people whose opinion had to be taken into account in considering whether or not it would be possible to raise the loan.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am only too happy to accept the right hon. Gentleman's answer if he means this, and this is what I as a lawyer do not quite appreciate: you ask a lender the conditions upon which you can get money from somebody else. He is to help you to raise the loan. He tells you that there must be certain conditions, and you say, "Go on and raise the loan." Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in those circumstances you are not bound to observe those conditions—not legally bound, but morally bound to observe them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The conditions were merely the conditions under which it would be possible to raise the money. What the late Government had to be sure of was that there would be sufficient confidence in foreign circles in the determination of the British Government to set their House in order and to balance their Budget.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am afraid that it would be improper for me to continue the cross-examination of the right hon. Gentleman, so I must accept his answer
as meaning that we are not bound morally or otherwise by any conditions whatsoever as regards this £80,000,000 credit. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that statement by nodding his head. Therefore we can now both, as regards this House and the country at large, remove that hedge behind which the Government has sought to take refuge.
Let me pass to the second reason which may be advanced. The second reason is that this is merely a financial Measure with no other purpose than to cut the payments to certain classes of people who receive those payments directly or indirectly from the State, and that the urgency is so great that all ordinary constitutional procedure must, for the first time in our history, be put aside. No one doubts the necessity of arriving at a balanced Budget, and the methods of arriving at that balance deserve the most careful and detailed consideration of this House and of the country; but now that the one object of rushing these Budget proposals and economies through has disappeared, there remains no valid argument whatsoever for the procedure laid down in this Bill. The Budget deficit for the current year is of comparatively small dimensions. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlement opposite laugh, but I would draw their attention to the fact that nearly every speaker in the House has stressed that point and that the really vital matter with which we have to deal is the trade balance of the country.
It is far more important that the debit of the trade balance should receive immediate attention than that methods should now be rushed through the House for attaining the balance of the Budget—not only this year's Budget, but very largely next year's Budget as well. We are now asked by this Government, which has no plans whatever for restoring the trade of this country, to rush through as an emergency Measure this Bill, which will deal with the minor matter and leave wholly untouched the major matter of the restoration of the balance of trade. Let me illustrate the absurdity of the position by assuming the most unlikely event that the country desires—a general tariff, to which the Government are rightly afraid to commit themselves. Do right bon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen
opposite suggest that, if such a tariff were introduced, it would not entirely alter the budgetary position of this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already ruled that the question of tariffs cannot be discussed on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I naturally bow to your Ruling. I was merely trying to point out the reason why this Bill should not be passed, namely, that it is dealing with a minor matter of importance which should not be dealt with until a major matter has been properly tackled by the Government; but I will pass from that point. So long as we remained upon the Gold Standard, the maintenance of that standard might have been made some feeble excuse for these emergency powers which we are asked to give the Government. Now that we have gone off the Gold Standard, there can be no possible reason to support the granting of these emergency powers. It would not be proper for me to mention on this occasion the various other ways in which the money given by these cuts could be raised—many of them have already been mentioned, and I will not repeat them—hut I do ask the House to draw a clear and definite distinction between a balancing of the Budget by reasonable and constitutional methods and within a reasonable period of time—to which everyone in the House will agree—and the balancing of the Budget by panic measures dictated by financiers and capitalists which the Government are trying to force through and which we are determined to oppose.
Let me now come to the third and last reason for the provisions of this Bill, a reason which I believe to be the true one. Over a series of years now the financial interests and capitalists of the world have been proceeding on a policy of deflation. This policy, they say, demands adjustments in the cost of wages and salaries and in the social services, adjustments which will continually bring down the standard of living as that deflation proceeds. Once you have driven down the prices of raw materials and foodstuffs almost to vanishing point, your prices of manufactured articles must follow, so as to allow the primary commodities to be exchanged for the manufactured goods through the medium of your currency. From the capitalist
point of view this procedure possesses many undoubted attractions. The real value of all interest payments on capital rises with the fall in price of commodities. The whole burden is transferred from the shoulders of those who provide capital to the shoulders of those who provide labour. Take, for instance, the purchasing power or real value of the interest on War Loan in this country. It increased enormously during the period 1924 to 1931, and so did the real value of rents and all payments at a fixed rate of interest. These payments, it is said, require no adjustment downwards; only the workers' wages and salaries need to be so adjusted.
The Labour party in this country have, during the past two and a-half years, been a serious hindrance to the making of the so-called adjustments required by the capitalist plan, because they insisted on maintaining and even increasing the social services, and set their faces against any reduction in the standard of living of the workers. One of the most vital factors in the maintenance of the standard of living is the maintenance of the scale of unemployment benefit, which has a most powerful influence upon the maintenance of wage levels. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the House of the continued attacks made inside and outside this House upon the policy of the Labour party in this respect. That policy held up the adjustment of wages which the capitalists thought necessary for the successful carrying out of their policy of deflation. It was, they said, maintaining at far too high a level the standard of living of the working classes of this country, who should naturally, according to their theory, be the first to suffer on a readjustment of this kind.

Mr. DIXEY: Who said that?

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member will see that any protagonist of the deflation theory has said it constantly. The success of the scale of unemployment benefit in helping to maintain this standard of living cannot be doubted. The violence of the attack upon the so-called "dole" amply demonstrates the fact, and it is for that reason that the capitalists, not only in this country but throughout the world, have for years been anxious that the unemployment
benefit should be reduced, so that the reductions in wages and salaries and social services might go forward according to plan. In this crisis they saw their opportunity, and they were not slow to take it. If the right atmosphere of panic could be produced about the risk of going off the Gold Standard, or as to the awful effect of an unbalanced Budget, then the country might be made to swallow these cuts as an act of patriotism without any realisation of their true significance. In this way the bulwarks which the Labour party had built up against a lowering of the standard of life might be swept away in a frenzy of flag-wagging.
The fact that the real trouble was an adverse balance of trade arising almost entirely from the policy which the capitalists had pursued, was to be kept in the background, as the Government had no remedy for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your Government!"] The present Government. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will ask their Government what remedy they have for it I do not think they will get any answer except, possibly, "A doctor's mandate." This suggestion that there might be some other problem was kept in the background; except for some vague sentences that there were other problems which would arise no emphasis has been put upon it by any Member of the Government in their speeches so far. The two arguments used by the Government, that it was absolutely necessary to remain on the Gold Standard, and that it was essential to take steps which would secure the approval of foreign financial interests, both demonstrate beyond all doubt the determination of this Government to pursue this deflationary policy with its resultant cuts in wages and the standards of life. And nothing is more significant than their determination to continue with that policy in spite of the fact of our going off the Gold Standard.
This system, which may be logical enough to the capitalist mind, meets with no following upon these benches. We believe that such a system never can cure, but will rather aggravate, that from which the world is at present suffering—under-consumption. But, above all, we refuse to follow a system which
inevitably enriches the capitalist and the rentier while it reduces the workers of the world to a level of starvation. I believe that the cuts in this Bill are part of a deliberate policy of adjustment designed, at no matter what cost to the workers of this country, to bolster up the very system of capitalism which has brought about the industrial ruin of the world. But, after all, I suppose that this House cannot expect anything else from the Tory Government which is in power, that Government representing a class that has continually used every possible device, and above all the call to patriotism, to protect its own interests. Nothing could be more illuminating on this point than two passages from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Health in this House on 14th September. He was stressing the urgency of the crisis as a justification for the summary procedure to be adopted, giving powers to Ministers to break all contracts—even statutory contracts—and inflicting on millions of the population during the coming winter a cut which will bring them—many of them—below the level of starvation point. He used these words:
The lives of His Majesty's subjects may not be in danger, but certainly their livelihood was threatened by the crisis which this Bill is designed to avert.
That, of course, was the crisis of going off the Gold Standard. Then, after stressing that we were on the very verge of national ruin, and saying that if the Bill were not passed it might have the effect of "bringing back the very danger from which we had at any rate been saved"—that, again, was going off the Gold Standard—he concluded the passage with these words:
The procedure is demanded by the national safety. That is the only but sufficient justification."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th September, 1931; cols. 637–8, Vol. 256.]
The House will observe that in the right hon. Gentleman's view the situation was so critical as to justify not only these cuts but the methods of their imposition. The other passage was dealing with the suggestion that to meet the emergency a mobilisation of foreign securities owned by people in this country might be brought about—owned not, of course, by those affected by the present Bill, but owned very largely by the financiers,
capitalists and rentiers. On this subject the right hon. Gentleman spoke as follows:
Even taking the £100,000,000, it is the fact that not more than a fraction of that amount could have been mobilised without taking such drastic measures as I am sure could not be contemplated in the present circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th September, 1931; col. 639, Vol. 256.]
Could there ever be a more clear demonstration of the capitalist mind? National safety easily demands the reducing of the unemployed to a level of starvation, but it is unthinkable, even when the livelihood of His Majesty's subjects are in danger, that anyone should suggest laying their hands upon the sacred sanctuary of the capitalists' investments. Truly, whatever else has happened, the Tory party have not fallen off the Gold Standard.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: You will fall off the soap box soon.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We on this side of the House have long predicted that capitalism as a system would fail. We now see that it has brought the whole structure of finance and industry to ruin, inflicting fresh miseries and sufferings on the workers throughout the world. We shall fight this Bill to the end, because we are certain that these cuts are neither sound financially nor just in their incidence, and because, too, there can be no need, in the existing circumstances, to use the emergency powers that are given by this Bill. We believe that instead of trying to rush through a Bill of this sort the first vital matter to be attended to is the reorganisation and reconstruction of the financial machinery and industries of this country, so that the full benefit may be derived from them, not by those who own the capital, but by the nation as a whole, and to this end the financial and industrial machine must be brought under public control.
The real issue which lies between us and the Government on this Bill is the far-reaching issue of whether this country shall continue to be dominated by the capitalists of the world, whether of our own or some other nationality, or whether, as we believe, and as apparently the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me believed, a complete change must be wrought in our system by bringing under
the control of this House the forces of finance and industry which have so great a power over the lives of individuals in this country, a power and influence which in our view has been used in the past with such disastrous effect upon the standard of living of the workers. It is only by controlling that influence that we believe it can be used for the good of the nation as a whole. Once this country is awakened to the reality of that issue, and realises the reason why it has been rushed into this heartless and unjust measure by the capitalists, we shall be confident that it will speak with no uncertain voice in condemning a government of capitalists masquerading under the guise of national saviours.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I can quite understand the gratification of hon. Members opposite at having at last discovered someone who can put up some sort of a show from the Front Bench opposite. [Interruption.] The ex-Solicitor-General has delivered what certainly was a very clever debating speech, scoring a point here and there, in the good old Parliamentary manner of 20 years ago. His speech was very characteristic of the mind of the present Front Opposition Bench, and furnished many illustrations of the sentimental claptrap which we have come to associate with the Labour party, and which has been expounded on every soap-box in the United Kingdom. I think the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman were unusually well expressed; but we on this side of the House are very familiar with all the arguments put forward in his speech; in fact, I think we are more familiar with them than the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. For at some points of the speech to which we have just listened I experienced the peculiar sensation that the hon. and learned Gentleman was being continually surprised by his own clichés. He said that the capitalists had been pursuing a policy of deflation. I would ask him: Does he really believe that the deflation which has taken place during the past 10 years has benefited any single capitalist in this country? As a matter of fact, there is not a producer of any sort in agriculture or any other branch of industry who has been able to make a profit for the last seven or eight years. It is a well-known fact that during a period of falling prices producers
never make a profit. The late Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that the causes of the recent deflation are largely due to forces which have not been under the control of any single country, least of all our own. For the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to get up in this House and solemnly state that the capitalists of this country have deliberately pursued a Machiavellian policy of deflation may be good enough for the soap-box but it will not do for the House of Commons.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was greatly concerned about constitutional practice, and by what he described as the attempt to take money from people by unconstitutional methods. I do not know that that would appeal very much to some hon. Members opposite; but for my part I do not think that we shall ever get through the troubles in which we find ourselves if we spend our time clinging to constitutional procedure which has become outworn, and is no longer effective for the immediate purposes of this country. I hope that the methods adopted in this Bill will enable the Executive to take efficient action to deal with an emergency situation. I would just like to say one further word to the ex-Solicitor-General. In the whole course of the speech which he tried to put over this afternoon he did not advance a single constructive proposal. For the last 10 years the party opposite has been falling between two stools. The 20th century is too stern an age for the sentimental stuff which was indulged in by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We have now to face up to realities; and in this century Governments have to make up their mind whether they will try to maintain conditions under which it is possible for individuals to do the work of the world, or whether they are prepared to take over that work and do it for themselves. The late Solicitor-General belonged to a Government which made no attempt to do either of those two things; they made no attempt either to create a condition of things which would make it possible for private enterprise to function, or to take over the industries themselves to run them and manage them. Consequently, the Labour Government fell between two stools; and for two solid years this country went downhill until we were
landed in the mess in which we find ourselves to-day.
I do not think that it is any good mincing words at the present time. I think the last Government was by far the worst this country has ever seen, and I am quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is intelligent enough to agree with me upon that point. Certainly, the hon. and learned Gentleman has no cause for the complacency which he has displayed this afternoon, because all the time that the present crisis was approaching what did the late Government do? They simply dithered about, wasting time on electoral reform and the hypothetical taxation of land values two years hence. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself wasted the time of this House for weeks and weeks on that subject, while we were approaching the Niagara which all but he could hear. It was not until the late Government was literally forced by the remorseless march of events to face some of the realities of the situation that they attempted to take any action at all. And what did they ultimately do? They ran away. The late Solicitor-General has asked what is the remedy of the present Government, but I think we are entitled to ask what is the remedy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is it to be, as he described it, the social control of those industrial financial and banking forces which exercise such power in this country? If so, what on earth does that mean? Exactly nothing.
I believe that the Bill which we are going to pass is more necessary to-day than it was before we came off the Gold Standard. I said in a speech in this House that I believed the danger of this Bill was that it might have increased the general deflationary process which was going on under the Gold Standard; but now there is no danger of such deflation. The danger to be guarded against to-day is the danger of inflation, and it is a real danger. The only thing that stands between the pound sterling and collapse is the credit of this country in the eyes of the world, and that depends on our having a balanced Budget, and a favourable balance of trade. If we were to abandon the principle of the balanced Budget—a principle which was
accepted by the last Government, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has admitted—then I think there would be a very serious danger of the pound sterling falling to such an extent that the standard of life would be reduced far below what can ever occur under this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentle man opposite may try to ride off in any way he likes, but he cannot get away from the fact that the Government of which he was a Member agreed to £56,000,000 of economies; and therefore they are committed -to the principle underlying this Bill. I am aware that right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not agree with all the methods proposed, but at any rate they are pledged to the principle of the Bill, and they cannot escape that fact. The only real difference between right hon. Gentlemen opposite and ourselves is that when the pace got too hot for them they ran away, and we are seeing the thing through. That being said, I should like to say that I do not regard these proposals as the last word in constructive statesmanship. Nor do I regard these particular cuts as being either stable or permanent. Nothing can be stable or permanent in this country until some sort of stability is restored to the currency of this country and of every other country in the world.
5.0 p.m.
I support this Bill as a disagreeable necessity to meet a temporary emergency, which has increased during the last three weeks. I think the cuts which are proposed in this Bill ought to be regarded as flexible, and therefore I welcome the method by which they are to be applied. Sooner or later we all know that the whole problem of how to handle the unemployment question has to be tackled at its roots. [Interruption.] Is it contended by hon. Members opposite that the taxation of land values will solve the unemployment problem? I think if the views of hon. Members opposite were taken on that subject a majority would be found against such a proposal. [Interruption.] We have listened to lecture after lecture from the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) on the subject of the taxation of land values, each one of them more absurd and fantastic than the last, and the House has displayed great patience—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not allow himself to be drawn into a discussion of matters that are outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I never introduced the topic of land values—

Mr. SPEAKER: No, but someone else did.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I should like to impress upon the Government one point which is of importance in connection with this Bill, and the importance of which is increasing, namely, the danger of profiteering in foodstuffs in this country during the next few weeks. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have no doubt noticed that scare headlines are beginning to appear in the Press, like "Food going up," "Prices becoming dearer," and so on, which may give rise to panic—

Mr. SPEAKER: The question of what should be done if the price of food rose does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I bow respectfully to your Ruling, and will leave that point; but I should have thought that the main argument of the Opposition has been that these cuts are unjustified because of the probability of a rise in the cost of living, as they have related the whole of their arguments to the cost of living at any given period. I was only trying to point out that there might be a danger of some advantage being taken of the present situation which might lead to a rise in prices; and, if this Bill is to be carried out, I think the Government ought to bear in mind the possibility of controlling food prices at any given moment.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate, that the fundamental problems which concern this country, and which are all closely relevant to this Bill, are really international rather than purely national in character. Reparations, international debts, tariffs, currency—which is so vitally connected with this Bill—all of these problems will have to be solved before prosperity is regained. They are much more important to the future prosperity of mankind than the downfall of the capitalist system. The last Government made no attempt to tackle or grapple with them; or to arm itself with the weapons that, are necessary if
we are successfully to conduct the fight for a higher standard of life for the people of this country. The two principal of those weapons are, first, internal solvency, which we are trying to secure this afternoon in the face of every sort of unjust and unfair opposition from the party opposite; and, secondly, the right to exercise some control over imports into this country. For these are the real, fundamental problems that matter. If the present Government would tackle them, I am certain, not only that it would be assured of a long lease of life, but that this country would be able to regain a measure of prosperity in the very near future. But until and unless we get a Government in this country that will tackle these vital international and world problems, I despair of ever seeing prosperity again; and, for my part, I believe that Government after Government will be overthrown until at last we get one which is able and willing to tackle them.

Mr. HICKS: I claim the indulgence of the House as this is the first occasion of my rising to make a contribution to its discussions, although I am not unfamiliar with political controversy outside the House. I am strongly opposed to this Bill and to all the cuts that it proposes, particularly the cuts in unemployment pay and the wage cuts. The curtailment of the wages of workers in public employment, and the curtailment of public works, houses, roads, and so on, suggest to me that, instead of the problem being tackled in the right way, it is going to be very largely intensified. I live in a borough which has not built a house to let during the whole of the past 12 months. There are over 30,000 houses in the borough, and, allowing for a moderate percentage of them going out of repair, at least 300 houses should have been built there during the year, but, as I have said, none have been built to let during the past 12 months either by private enterprise or under any of the Acts that are available. The cuts in housing and roads will affect very materially a large number of industrial workers in this country. In the industry with which I am particularly familiar, we have had for many months past an unemployment figure of over 160,000, and probably by now it will have reached 200,000. All the information that
I get indicates that the present Government's proposals for effecting economies, and particularly the proposals contained in this Bill, have resulted in a tightening up of expenditure by local authorities, very few of whom are progressive, and most of whom are particularly anxious to lend an ear to any suggestion for economy, thus intensifying the problem of unemployment. As has been stated by many of my hon. Friends on this side, the cut in unemployment pay is taking food from the hungry. This is not, like Oliver Twist, asking for more; it is Bumble taking away from them what they have already got; and I feel that the present Government ought to be known in history as His Majesty's Bumble Government more than by any other title.
I do not desire, in addressing the House for the first time, to transgress the rules of order, but I should like to point out that unemployment is not confined to those who happen at the present time to be unemployed. Unemployment is at the elbow of practically every worker in the country, and the cuts which are to be made in unemployment benefit are viewed with very great dread, because those who are now in employment will be potential recipients of the same kind of medicine. Moreover, they will have the effect of robbing men of some of their independence. Since I have been in this House, I have heard during the Debates, and particularly those on this Bill, the question of unemployment pay referred to as an insurance against revolution, and I believe there is a very substantial measure of truth in that; but I am also sure that it has been an insurance against blacklegging, and I am particularly apprehensive that, when the cuts take effect, as they apparently will, men will be robbed of independence and will be compelled, much against their taste and desire, to do acts totally different from what their standard of conduct and honour would suggest. On that ground particularly I am opposed to this Measure. It seems to me that the unemployed, the poor, and the working people pay in every case. If the country is on the Gold Standard, they have to pay increased amounts to the rentier class, while if the country is off the Gold Standard they have to pay higher prices for their food. It matters not which way things happen at the present time, they appear to be caught either way.
It is very illuminating to one who, like myself, is associated with an economic organisation outside, to hear the observations of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the conduct of the trade union movement in this country in relation to the present crisis. I have had opportunities of meeting the representatives of the employers' organisations in every industry in this country, and I followed with great concern the declaration made just over 12 months ago by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and the later statements of the Federation of British Industries, the Confederation of Employers, and the engineering employers; and I have noticed how consistently the same policy is followed by this Government, particularly in their present proposals. These organisations on the other side are the organisations which we might well call the Trades Union Congress of the Tory and Liberal parties, and it seems to me that the legislation proposed in this House reflects very closely their declared opinions and desires. It would be unfair for me, in making ray first speech, to take up too much of the time of the House, but it does seem to me that, in the midst of glutted markets, granaries and storehouses, and colossal harvests of wheat, tea, coffee, sugar, cotton and other natural products, with the capacity of our people to produce greater than ever before, and the statements of economists and statisticians as to the enormous opportunities that we have to increase our wealth, we yet have to ask our people to take something less than they have hitherto been receiving. The proposed reductions in the standard of life appear to me, in relation to these facts, to be totally unreal.
It was stated quite recently by the Economic Section of the League of Nations that between 1913 and 1928 the world's population increased by, roughly, 10 per cent., while the production of raw materials during the same period increased by 25 per cent., and the production of manufactured commodities increased in a still greater proportion. Between 1925 and 1928, in the steel, engineering, shipbuilding and other industries of this country, production increased by over 25 per cent. To-day we are in this position, that practically every individual workman is able to produce twice as much as he did in 1900. Five men to-day can produce sufficient bread to
feed 1,000 people; four men can produce sufficient cotton cloth for 1,000 people; three men can produce sufficient woollens for 1,000 people; one person can produce sufficient boots and shoes for 1,000 people. Imagine the enormous capacity that we have, and it is by no means fully developed yet. I am confident that, however far our industries in this country have developed, there are possibilities, provided that brains and effective organisation are applied to industry, of even a still further increase in productive capacity in this country. Then we have this nonsense about economy. I think this Bill demonstrates precious little thinking. It does not think through and beyond the proposals advanced here. In a Budget of anything between £800,000,000 and £900,000,000 there should be plenty of scope to effect economies without having to go to the unemployed.
I am aware that the Bill will be passed, but that will not be the end of the story. The people who create this wealth will not tolerate this state of affairs indefinitely. There is still some pride and manhood left in the British workman. He will want to know why he has to make additional sacrifices in these days of increased capacity. This Bill will burn into their very souls. They will be asking why, now that we have over production, we should have under consumption, why it is that the more they produce the less they shall have, and why, the harder they work, there is more terrible subsequent unemployment. They are asked to intensify their work, and the reward for intensified work is subsequent unemployment with all that that means. They will be asking why industrial progress involves them in greater wretchedness. They are seeking for answers to these questions at present. I have spent a large portion of' my life in consultation with these men, and I come in contact with them now, and I can state very definitely that questions of this character are constantly being asked at our gatherings.
I had hoped—I suppose to put it higher than hope would be asking too much—that in the changed circumstances we might have had some reconsideration of this Measure, believing that, if we set our minds and our brains to this problem in the right way, and attempted to plan the resources of the country into the
general mosaic of our life, and believing that by international consultation and planning we could enrich the life of humanity instead of attempting to diminish it, that would be the better and more proper course to pursue. We are playing with human life. We are playing with emotions and destroying the little domestic structures and the economies in the home that these people have built up. We are burning right into their hearts and souls, and, unless we can bring ideas and intelligence to bear to give them some fair play so that there shall be a reward for greater energy, we shall not only disappoint them but with bitterness and tumult they will insist on trying to destroy the system—and I hope they will destroy it—which is constantly asking them to accept handicaps in face of plenty.

Viscount LYMINGTON: I am glad to have the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member on his maiden speech. I cannot help feeling that in his efforts to examine the Bill he has been far more constructive than the late Solicitor-General. I hope that in the Parliament which will reassemble sooner or later for five years we shall often have the chance of hearing his eloquence from those benches opposite. I support very strongly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) said about the cogency and the urgency of the Bill. We who have listened to the Debates in this short term have been more struck by the continuity with which the pot has called the kettle black than anything else. We have gone through the Lobbies because it was a necessity in a case of emergency, but very often with grave doubts, and I think there should be a moment before we pass the Bill when we should face exactly the reasons why we are supporting it. I am speaking personally and not for any other Member of my party. Some of us had grave doubts as to the effect of a National Government, which we believe to be an absolute necessity to carry out the balancing of this Budget. Those who have had any experience of National Governments or coalitions know that it is generally a case of making two negatives an affirmative. While I shall never have voted with greater enthusiasm for a gross cut than I shall on this Bill, in
its details one cannot help feeling that it is a Measure that has been pushed through, because of the necessity of the situation, with almost undue haste. I do not think we have reached the end of the economies that we might make. At the same time one cannot help feeling that the Bill must be regarded as a preliminary only to the reconstruction that the hon. Member has spoken about, and to that larger international reconstruction referred to by speakers on this side.
If one may turn to these cuts in detail, it seemed to some of us that the education cut of 15 per cent. was a necessity which we accepted loyally or not at all. If it is worth reducing to 10 per cent., it should have been 10 per cent. from the beginning. I said that to someone outside the House, and he said, "That is just like doing a deal. You ask for more than you are prepared to give." I said, "That, after all, is supposed to be the difference between Hebrew finance and Christian government." Take again the defence forces. Of all the cuts that we are asked to vote for in this state of world unrest, the cut in the defence forces is one that one views with more grave misgivings than almost any others. We are rather in the position of someone who is unable to effect an insurance policy on his warehouse and, in order to cut down, sacks the night watchman. A sacrifice of personnel and materiel at this moment is no better than asking Europe to disarm before you have removed the causes of war. There are similar cuts, some of which are justified and some which one feels might have been considerably bigger. For instance, there is the Road Fund. After all we are better roaded to-day than any country in the world, and those cuts which we might reasonably have expected I do not think have been made half strong enough. The only justification for the building of new arterial roads, and the entire remaking of roads, is in those places where the congestion of traffic is such that it materially disturbs the economic carrying out of the transport trade, such as avenues round the great docks and the big centres of urban traffic. In the hurry there has been too great a desire to cut down more reconstructive schemes, such as water schemes and agricultural drainage schemes in general,
because the Finance Bill has added to the agriculturists' difficulty while it has taken away the chances of reconstruction on the other hand in the Economy Bill.
The unemployment cut seems to be the most serious of all. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour), who spoke last night, about the need for having something in our minds of a datum line below which we should not let our assistance fall. At the same time we must be prepared to face the popular and unpopular, and the unemployment cuts, surely, can only stand as a preliminary to a real reconstruction of the whole system of assistance. I think with this Bill one cannot help going to the whole root of the matter. You can make a cut, like a surgical operation, which will do the patient good in the end, or you can let it fall with a clumsy edge and an unsharpened knife which will only help him to bleed to death. It is the difference between reconstruction and mere blind economy. One cannot help feeling that the cuts in education are only justified as a first step in the complete reconstruction of education, making it more efficient though not necessarily not more expensive than it is now, and that the cuts in grants for agricultural research are only there as a preliminary to the reorganisation and reconstruction of agriculture, and putting it on a sound basis. We are not allowed to mention them in this Debate, but at least there are measures which are dealt with in the finance of the country, both in economy and in expenditure, which might well be made a prelude to reconstruction. Similarly in regard to the Civil Service, unless we are prepared to reorganise the individual cuts are not going to avail us a great deal.
When we vote for this Measure at half-past seven, it will be in the hope that it is the first of a series of measures of real and wise economy, because economies which liberate money to be spent in the proper manner are, after all, one of the means of helping this nation on to its feet and one of the most cogent necessities of the moment. The Knights of the shire were summoned to the House of Commons in order to see that the national expenditure was controlled, but
to-day we have forgotten all that, and it is Members of the House of Commons who make expenditure before they see where it is leading them. Let this be the first Bill by which the House of Commons may regain its control of Supplies, instead of continually pushing forward new expenditure the implications of which certainly not more than one in 10 Members of the House can foresee at the present time and not one in 1,000 voters can judge.

Sir BEN TURNER: I want to bring the discussion upon the Economy Bill back to the Bill itself—to the brutality of the Bill. We have discussed very high sounding theories, and hon. Members have put forward criticisms about past Governments, but I want solely to deal with the alleged Economy Bill that is now before the House of Commons and to declare most frankly that it is a costly Economy Bill. There is no economy about it. It is costly in flesh and blood and tears and want. It was conceived in misfortune, and it ought to be buried as quickly as possible. I wish to appeal to the Prime Minister who used to be, and perhaps may be again at some time, a most friendly co-operator with us on this side of the House. [Interruption.] As least I hope so, personally. I am not going to forget friendships and work done during the past 40 years by persons like the Prime Minister, and I am still hopeful that men may amend even if they snake a mistake and get off the rails now and then. I am going to appeal to the Prime Minister to withdraw this alleged Economy Bill because the reasons for it has gone absolutely. As the late Solicitor-General the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has declared, it was brought forward to try to save the pound. The pound has fled. Hysterical speeches were made only a few days ago to try to save the pound. The pound went a week last Sunday, and there seemed to be a joyousness on the Monday because it had gone. It has gone and the reason for this Bill therefore no longer exists.
However, the burdens of the financial crisis are such, we are told, that we must have some sacrifices from somewhere. The sacrifices always seem to come from those least able to bear them, and they are now coming from them to a
very extreme extent indeed. There is something wrong with the method also. An imposition is now being applied. It is not an agreed arrangement between contending or opposite parties, but an imposition on the part of the Government by means of Orders-in-Council and similar things, breaking down the machinery that has been established at great cost and trouble by teachers, trade unionists and professional men in connection with salaries and wages. The collective bargaining system has gone. I have a great faith in collective bargaining. It is a great aid towards peace in industry. We have never had a chance of trying it. The present Bill has been put before the House of Commons to impose the will of the Government upon the various employés of the State and the public authorities without attempting to use the collective bargaining machinery which is in existence. Some of our little towns can show an example to the House of Commons, and, perhaps, to the Government. When the de-rating business came along a little town of which I happen to have knowledge had a five-penny rate added to its financial burdens straight away. It was handicapped. What happened? The National Association of Local Government Officers were called into consultation and were asked what they could do to help the town in. its time of trouble. The question was discussed between the employers—the corporation—and the association and an agreement was arrived at. It was not a flat rate agreement of 10 per cent., and not an imposition, but a graduated percentage of 2½ per cent. upon a salary of £100—salaries of less than £100 were exempt—5 per cent. at a given figure, then 7½ per cent., and 10 per cent. at the top figure.
The Government have never tried to meet the teachers or any other organisation with the object of making an arrangement in regard to wages or salaries to meet the situation. They have been breaking down one of the best agencies possible for peace in the national sense and peace by negotiation. They are, in this Bill, doing something which is very vile indeed. Many hon. Members will have read more about history than I have, but I have read a great deal about the hungry 'forties and about the Poor Law
of 1830 or thereabouts. We are now reenacting in the Economy Bill not a reformation of the Poor Law system but a Poor Law inquisition. The Bastille was a great word used in the French Revolution. The Bastille system is to be operated under this inquisition by what is termed the public assistance committee. You may call it the public assistance committee, but it is the Poor Law in the very essence. Our respectable, decent working men and women will have to undergo the inquisition of the former Poor Law system, which is not the right way to deal with this business. Most unemployed people and partly unemployed people are decent, God-fearing men and women. Indeed the whole working-class population of the Kingdom are upright, decent folk. But you are going to penalise them in a cruel and heartless fashion by compelling them to go to the public assistance committee to sign documents and forms under what is termed an Act of necessity.
How is the Economy Bill going to work? I am the father of a family, and I have worked out the position in this way. A man, his wife and two children are to get under the Economy Act, 27s. 3d. What does 27s. 3d. mean in brutal, hard facts? It means 10s. for rent and rates. It may be more and it may be less, but that is the average in our provincial industrial towns. There are 84 meals per week for a family of four persons. That only allows for three meals a day, whereas a lad or a lass wants five. Allowing for three meals a day at 2d. a meal per person, the amount comes to 14s. and thus, with the allowance for rent, 24s. has gone out of the 27s. 3d. Then there are clothes, coals and gas and all the other accessories of life to be paid for out of the remaining 3s. 3d. It is impossible. It puts them absolutely below the bread line straight away. In the name of national economy, we are going to starve the bairns and break the hearts of the women.
The other day I was reading a most useful paragraph in a newspaper issued in society. It said, as regards the upkeep of a, child, that if you had a fairly normal mixed diet and the child was able to share in the family meals, 10s. 6d. a week would be the minimum to cover the value of the food. It would include milk, a 1s. eggs at 2d. each, 1s. 2d.; fruit and vegetables, 2s. 4d.; meat, fish and cheese, 2s. 7d.; half-pound of butter,
8d.; and bread and cereals, 2s. Our working class lads and lasses have no chance whatever of a diet of that, character, but they are the same flesh and blood as their more fortunate brothers and sisters. The Economy Bill will destroy the chance of those lads and lasses becoming sensible, sound physical beings. I am reminded of the old verses of the hungry 'forties when I hear all the election talk about these new-fangled schemes —I dare not mention tariffs—referred to by vanious speakers. I am reminded of those hungry 'forties when there were impositions and there was poverty, and it seems that these things are going to be imposed upon our people again. The prayer of the people was:
O Lord save us and keep us all alive, Around the table, nine of us, but only food for five.
That is what the Economy Bill is going to do. It will break down the family standard of life, and I wish that the Prime Minister, an old agricultural labourer's son, would see it in that particular light. He is destroying the home life of our people and destroying the chance of good men and good women being created. Mention has been made about the Gold Standard having slipped, and about deflationary policy. There has been a deflationary policy in the ranks of the working class during the last three or four years. In my own trade of textiles the employers have imposed, not by agreement, a reduction of wages on two occasions of 21 per cent.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Gandhi did it.

Sir B. TURNER: Gandhi did not do it. Ours is woollen cloth, not cotton. That is what has happened. Wt have had the cuts already, and we have halftime employment, and we are going to have still more cuts in regard to unemployment benefit. I plead as a Christian father that this crime should not be committed against our working poor, who are the best working folk in the world. Wage cuts, unemployment cuts—that is the way to ruin and revolution. I do not want ruin and I do not want revolution. I want reorganisation and development. I do not want violence of any sort—not even bad language of any kind. I wish these things to be done away with. If money is wanted—and we are millions richer than we were—get it from where it is, but do not starve the
people and take away what little is left for the unemployed and the poor.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: The hon. Member who has just sat down speaks after long service to the cause for which he has pleaded. He has not addressed us from some Fabian essay, but from his great experience of these matters. Let me say, as an old friend and comrade, that I believe he is thoroughly sincere in his attitude. [Interruption.] I am going to ask for the usual courtesy that is extended to an hon. Member when addressing the House. I rise because I think that someone from these benches who supports the Prime Minister in his policy should state the reasons which induced us to support him and to vote for this Bill. The Bill does not pretend to be the complete treatment which this Government intend to apply to national necessities. There is no informed hon. Member opposite who for one moment believes any such thing. The Bill is directed to meet a particular urgency. If it stood alone and if it were the last word which this Government were going to say in this House for dealing with national necessities, I should not support it. The Bill is merely a specific treatment of an urgent situation and it ought to be supplemented—I shall certainly do all that I can to get it supplemented and I hope the people of the country and hon. Members opposite will help in getting it supplemented—by appropriate measures which will contribute to an improvement of the national situation.
I have never changed my view—[Interruption]—t hat in a matter of economy the first direction in which the Government should move is in regard to war debts and armaments, and such opportunities as I enjoy in this House I intend to apply to that end. [HON. MEMBERS: "you vote against armaments?"] Certainly. I spoke against naval armaments in each of the Debates on the subject. The present Debate illustrates the difficulty in which right hon. and hon. Members opposite find themselves. On other occasions their appeal, on large principles, for great schemes of social reconstruction would be in order, but they are entirely out of place in meeting the necessities which confront the Government. The hon. and learned Member who began the discussion appar-
ently started a new series of Fabian essays. I found it of particular interest, because it was the first occasion on which I have heard him make observations in regard to political business in this House. He came suddenly and unexpectedly into the overheated atmosphere which he found on the benches opposite, and it resulted in the amazing phrases that he used, to the increasing amusement of those who sit on these benches. He continually denounced the capitalist system. This fine blossom of the capitalist system, who has been rocked and dandled into a legislator! If such denunciations are to be heard in this House, and I agree that they should be heard if they are sincerely held, they might more fittingly come from another quarter.
I want to apply myself to the causes which induced me to support this Bill, in company with the Prime Minister. The hon. and learned Member said that the Government was brought into being to save the Gold Standard. If he were not a newcomer to public business I should question the sincerity of that declaration, because it must be common knowledge that the circumstances which brought this Government into existence were directed to two purposes, (1) to maintaining the Gold Standard, and (2) to balancing the Budget. To that end the hon. and learned Gentleman's associates in the late Government put forward proposals and accepted proposals which represent nine-tenths of the proposals embodied in this Bill—[Interruption.] Certainly. That is the true account of the situation which brought into existence the present Government, namely, in the main the business of balancing the national finances, and their predecessors accepted proposals which, in the main, are the proposals embodied in this Bill.
The item which has, quite naturally, excited the warmest feeling in the House is the proposal with regard to unemployment benefit. Let me say a few words on that subject. The reason why the Unemployment Insurance Fund was particularly pointed to in the discussions in the late Government and in the new Government was the amazing deficit which was rapidly accumulating. It already amounted to £100,000,000, and it was accumulating at the rate of £1,000,000 a week. A Royal Commission
was considering the proposals for diminishing the charges on the fund. An interim report had been presented, and a special Act had been passed by this House, which is about to come into operation, designed to curtail as far as possible expenditure under this extraordinary item of Unemployment Insurance. In the discussions there has been disclosed a view of Unemployment Insurance which has no foundation in fact. It has been an advantage to hear hon. Members opposite talk about Unemployment Insurance as if it were some method designed for the better distribution of national income. It is no such thing and never was intended to be.
Moreover, a profound misconception of the purpose of Unemployment Insurance was disclosed in speeches which suggested that the present provision for Unemployment Insurance was intended to be full maintenance. It was never intended to be anything of the sort. Unemployment Insurance, originally, was payment to cover a risk to which the beneficiary had himself contributed. It was subsequently supplemented, owing to urgent necessities, by the provision for transitional benefit. In the upshot, it has resulted in the enormous deficit to which I have alluded. That was the situation—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may disagree with me. In this House we stand to express our own views, and I make no apology to anybody for expressing my view, however ill-informed hon. Members opposite may think I am. I endeavour to inform myself as best I can of all the circumstances, and I am always prepared to correct my view in the light of new facts which may come forward as occasion demands.
I am satisfied, in view of the position of the Unemployment Fund and of the national financial situation to which it has contributed, that the allowances pro vided in the Bill are the maximum allowances which can reasonably be expected. I should, however, like to emphasise the point that in the administration of these reduced allowances the greatest possible care should be taken to effect every possible economy. The situation is going to be eased by the operation of the Anomalies Act. There is not one hon. Member opposite who does not know that in every street in this Kingdom you will find wicked abuses of the Unemployment
Insurance Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] I have made inquiries, and if hon. Members opposite who interrupt me have also made inquiries, they will have found that unemployed workers and employed workers in the back streets of this Kingdom know of numerous cases—

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to know whether the hon. and learned Member has inquired from house to house in Park Lane.

Mr. KNIGHT: I think that interruption can fittingly be disregarded. When hon. Members opposite go to face their constituents, they will learn it to be the truth that in every street in this Kingdom in which there are employed or unemployed workers, there are notorious cases of abuse of the Unemployment Insurance Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] Yes. Hon. Members opposite may look forward to the election, in which they will range all the spongers to be found in the back streets—[nterruption1]—but against that mob—[Interruption]—of the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) will be a very fitting exponent—

Miss LEE: On a point of Order. I represent a large number of industrial workers and I do not know a single sponger among them. I want the hon. and learned Member to withdraw his remark.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members would allow hon. Members to make their speeches without interruptions we should not get all these recriminations which are always unfortunate.

Mr. BUC HANAN: The hon. and learned Member has said that the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) is a fitting representative of spongers—

Mr. KNIGHT: No.

Mr. BUCHANAN: A fitting exponent of spongers. May I ask whether that is in order; and also whether I should be in order in saying that the hon. and learned Member was during the last Government the best sponger in it?

Mr. SPEAKER: As regards the re- mark of the hon. and learned Member it is not one I should have made myself.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

6.0 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I decline to withdraw any word I have said. I have myself heard the hon. Lady make observations in this House which could be used by these persons to justify their coming to the public funds for any money that they want. Such persons I describe as spongers, and I say, with all possible respect, that expressions used in this House holding out this promise to people who notoriously are known to be living in this way are a public disservice. I say, further, that the people who have the strongest feeling regarding these persons, whom I have properly called spongers, are the employed and unemployed workers, the genuine unemployed workers. I am sorry if I have said anything which has unduly excited the feelings of hon. Members opposite, and I confess that I am astonished that anything I could say should have that effect.
I have said these things because I think they ought to be said, and I have said them in connection with the plea, which I address again to the Government, that I hope by the administration of the Unemployment Fund and the operation of the Anomalies Act, which is designed to deal with notorious abuses, the fund will be so lightened that it will be possible, as speedily as possible, particularly if the cost of living rises, for the Government to diminish the calls upon these unfortunate people. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite ought to believe it of their fellow Members that no cut in the benefit of unemployed men and women would be supported except in the sincere belief that it was a dire necessity. [Interruption.] One can only make that declaration, as I do; and I make it as one who has had personal experience in these matters. [Interruption.] I apologise for having been somewhat longer than I intended, but I have been led away. I am entitled to say this, that the old associates of the Prime Minister who have accompanied him in this policy are doing it because they sincerely believe it is required by the interests of the country, and they are united in asking him and his colleagues to lighten this particular burden on the most distressful section of the community as speedily as possible..

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I have listened with some amazement to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for
Nottingham South (Mr. Knight), and we on these benches are prepared to meet such arguments in this Chamber or anywhere else. The Labour party has suffered defeat and loss in the past, we have experienced disappointments in all kinds of ways, but the greatest and most distressing loss we ever sustained was when the hon. and learned Member crossed the Floor of the House. The hon. and learned Member suggested that the proposed benefits in the Economy Bill were the maximum that the country could possibly pay in all the circumstances of the moment, and that he is therefore justified in supporting these cuts. The hon. and learned Member must have been asleep for the past two weeks otherwise he would not have referred to the Gold Standard. If there ever was any justification for any one of the cuts in the Economy Bill such justification went about two weeks ago.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Why?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member does not seem to have learned that despite all the efforts of the Government, despite the fact that they borrowed £50,000,000 and £80,000,000 in order to maintain the Gold Standard, they failed in their object, and therefore any justification there was for the Economy Bill went by the board. This Economy Bill was neither necessary at the time it was introduced nor is there any need for it at the present moment. If hon. Members opposite want to know exactly how the present crisis arose they have only to read one of their leading newspapers of yesterday, the "Evening Standard," to get the real truth. That paper said:
The whole Conservative policy since 1925 has rested on the re-introduction of the Gold Standard. It was this that brought about the depression following the year 1925, and eventually and inevitably led to this crisis.
If there is any truth in the statement that somebody ran away from acting as a wet nurse to the Tory party hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House were perfectly justified, for by remaining they would have implied that these severe cats on the unemployed people were necessary, in a process of propping up for a moment the system which hon. Members opposite support,
but which despite all their support is actually crumbling before their eyes. What is the proposed remedy? The remedy proposed is that certain sections of the community must be content with a reduced income in wages or benefits. We on these benches have been very good students of good teachers and we have frequently said that to reduce wages, and thus to reduce the purchasing power of the people, is not going to solve the problem but will actually intensify it. Here is a book written eight or nine years ago by a prominent member of the present Administration. Referring to unemployment, he said:
A reduction in wages is not a panacea for trade depression. On the contrary, it aggravates the position by lessening still further the effective demand of people who have a great unsatisfied consuming capacity.
That was written by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his supporters in this party were satisfied that he had written a truth. What was true in 1921 is true in 1931. If you reduce the spending power of the unemployed, or of any section of the working community, the same thing is hound to result; you will intensify rather than cure the problem. In regard to the question of increased output per person per annum, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote:
Some plan must be devised by which the remuneration of labour shall absorb the increased product, and when that has been achieved the objection of labour to increased production and to putting forward its best efforts will have been removed.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Government had been devising ways and means whereby the redistribution of the national products was made possible there would have been no necessity for these economies. I want to refer to the question of unemployment benefit and to the amazing speech of the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham South. He referred to this "amazing deficiency." That statement has been made by every important and unimportant Member opposite. What are the facts with regard to the deficiencies of the fund. Since 1924 down to 1931 we have borrowed £120,000,000, not all of which is expended at the moment. The present Government in two weeks have borrowed £130,000,000 to prop up the Gold Standard,
and they have failed in their object. We have an amazing loan of less than £20,000,000 per annum for the Unemployment Fund, while we pay £300,000,000 in interest on the National Debt and £130,000,000 on the Army and Navy. This colossal sum of £20,000,000 is the thing which dominates not only the Gold Standard but our internal and external currencies as well; it is the one thing upon which depends the prosperity or destruction of this country.
I suggest to bon. Members opposite that when they refer to these colossal debts, as they call them, that there are some people beyond these four walls who are aware of the exaggerated statements which are being made. If it is right for the Government to borrow £130,000,000 in the space of two weeks to preserve the Gold Standard and to make the world safe for the bankers, it is not too bad at all events in the space of seven years to borrow £120,000,000 to help the millions who are denied the right to work. It is true that the present Minister of Labour from time to time has referred to a statement once made by the ex-Minister of Labour, namely, that it was dishonest finance to continue to borrow for the Unemployment Fund. My right hon. Friend persisted in that statement that it was dishonest to continue a borrowing policy. But the previous Minister of Labour had the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with. If she could have had her way she would have refused to persist in borrowing; she would have refused also to reduce the benefits to the unemployed; she would have paid the annual deficit year by year as it was created. That is exactly what ought to have happened.
I want to make a brief reference to the needs test. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) present. He is a typical Union Jack flag-wagger. He is the person who would condemn the attempt at breaking up the domestic home, separating father from son and destroying family life as it has been done in Russia. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has examined this needs test as it will be applied. Is he aware that when the test if applied it may have the effect of driving tens of thousands of single young men away from their homes? Alternatively has it ever occurred to him or to
any of his colleagues that it may have the result where it happens for the moment to be the father who is out of work while the son is working, or the son is out of work while the father is working, that the very fact of applying one's physical qualities with a greater intensity and earning a bigger wage, that the public assistance committee will provide a smaller sum of money in the way of benefit, and that as a result of that the mentality of the man will make him say something like this to himself: "Since the harder I work and the more I earn the less I get, I might as well have an easy life, earn a smaller wage, or produce a smaller output, and get more from the Unemployment Insurance Department." All these possibilities are involved in the application of the needs test. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in another place to examine the possibilities of the test.
Then as to the cuts in education expenditure. It is true that because the teachers are well organised and capable of bringing pressure to bear they have already secured a concession; but it is also true to say that, notwithstanding the concession, tens of thousands of teachers who have entered into all sorts of obligations will find themselves very hard put to it to meet those obligations as a result of the 10 per cent. cut. I bring to my aid as a witness a right hon. Gentleman on the Government side who stated that the teaching profession was probably the foremost profession in this country, and in referring to the conditions that ought to apply to teachers said:
The teaching profession must be made more attractive to men and women of enterprise and ability. The prizes in the teaching profession have been few, and must remain few, but it is necessary that every competent person in the profession should be adequately remunerated, free from worry about pecuniary matters and provided with an income sufficient to support a good social position. The work of a teacher is not less important in social utility than the work of a lawyer, a doctor, an architect or an engineer, and it should be at least as well remunerated.
That is a statement made in a book called "Labour and the New World" written by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that the teacher ought to' be removed from pecuniary worries. As a matter of fact, the cuts made by this Bill will mean that
thousands of teachers will be almost worried out of their lives to know exactly what they are to do when the cut becomes effective. I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to re-examine his ideas of 10 years ago in the light of his present actions. I am convinced that he would not hesitate very long in making up his mind that his new-found friends are no friends at all, and that the policy which they have superimposed upon him is a policy that ought not to be applied. In reference to the present crisis, it is very interesting also to observe the foreword that the present Chancellor of the Exchquer included in this book. He embodied in it a quotation that is well worth recording. The book was written in 1921, but it is very up to date so far as the present crisis is concerned. This is the quotation:
The old world must and will come to an end. No effort can shore it up much longer. If there be any who feel inclined to maintain it, let them beware lest it fall upon them and overwhelm them and their households in the ruins.
That was a quotation made originally by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but it was embodied in this volume by the present Chancellor. It seems to me that the old world is falling in ruins, and, as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has said, it is the poor that are called upon to pay the price every time we feel that the props are unsettled and bits are falling from the edifice.
This Bill is typical of the Tory party. It is exactly what we might have expected from that particular source. Wage-cutting and reduction of unemployment benefits have been their policy since 1929. We know what has been behind their minds from the moment the last Government took office. The present crisis is undoubtedly a blessing in disguise to the present Government, because it has permitted them to do what no other circumstances would have enabled them to do. The present Chancellor in 1911, when opposing an Amendment which had for its object the reduction of the salary of a Member of Parliament from £400 to £300, explained the delicacy of the task of a Member in making any reference to the payment at all, and he
appealed for the tolerance of Members in all parts of the House. I do not know that I require to appeal for the tolerance of Members in any part of the House, but I suggest that the proposed cut in Parliamentary Members' salaries is a most vicious attack upon democratic representation in this country. In 1911 the Chancellor said that the minimum upon which any Member could carry out his duties was £400. The cost of living today is about 50 per cent. higher than it was in 1911. Yet the Chancellor has become part and parcel of the Tory party and is making it more difficult rather than less for Labour Members to perform their duties in future.
Though little has been made of this vicious attack upon democratic representation, it will not go by unnoticed, and I hope that before long we shall be able not only to revise that part of the Bill, but that we shall be able to see printed and placed over the door of every Tory Member a statement showing that the Tories gloated over the fact that education had to be cut down, public health had to be economised upon, police pay had to be reduced, and unemployment benefits cut down. Such a statement ought to be placed over the door of every Tory Member and of everyone who supports this Bill. I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Bill.

Mr. RHYS: Although I am not making a maiden speech, it is some time since I had the honour of addressing the House, and if I do not claim any indulgence I hope that hon. Members will be as lenient as they can. Since the House reassembled on 8th September, I have listened to most of the Debates in the House, but apart from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the first day, which led us to believe that he had some understanding of the crisis, no speaker from the Opposition Benches, apart from paying lip service to that matter, has led us to believe that he appreciates the seriousness of the present situation. It will not be unfair to say that now that three Socialist leaders who sit on the Government Bench have left the party opposite, the Labour party stand once more as an extremist party. The moderating influence of the Prime Minister and his colleagues having been removed they are now advocating the full policy of Socialism.
We are told that now we have gone off the Gold Standard there is no need for this Economy Bill. But one of the reasons why we have had to go off the Gold Standard is to be found in the somewhat irresponsible speeches from the Opposition Front Bench. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite say that the one way in which we should continue these various payments is by borrowing, and that that would be perfectly easy. But who, having any money to lend, would wish to lend it to a Government which had the openly avowed intention of confiscating the savings 'of any capitalist? They admit that if we are to keep up—I should like to see it done if it were possible—the rates of unemployment benefit, that can be done only by borrowing. But where in the various speeches made by members of the late Government do they indicate the sources from which such borrowings should come? Is it Likely, after such ample warning, that lenders would continue to pour their money into the bottomless pit? I am bound to say I do not think it likely.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say that we should not pass this Bill without mobilising foreign investments. But when they have been mobilised and have been used, what then? Where should we go for further supplies when we have used up the great resource which has been left, to us with which to secure foreign currency to pay for our imports of food? It might be possible to stave off disaster for a little time, but the crisis would only recur. The only reason why we on this side support these very unpleasant cuts—we do so with a heavy heart—is that we are convinced that this is no time for argument, but a time for action. Many of us want to see, after the immediate safeguards are taken, a proper investigation into what may appear to be a defect in the capitalist system, when the hoarding of gold in two countries bas reached the present position. But the fact that there may be a defect is no argument that the system itself is wrong. We want to see broad policies of reconstruction. But all these are matters of argument, matters which can be thrashed out later on.
I am sure that the present Prime Minister would not have taken the course that he has taken, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Dominions, if
he had not had a very good reason for it. The real reason is that behind all sources of wealth, as we know it to-day, is the fundamental human desire of a man to be better off at the end of his life than at the beginning; and any system in this world which leaves that fundamental consideration out of account is bound to fail. As we are working to a time table, I shall not address the House at greater length. I conclude by saying that we shall go into the Lobby to-night to vote for this Bill, firmly hoping that it will only be a temporary Measure and that it will be complemented in the future by further policies of reconstruction into which I cannot go tonight. We hope that when those policies are put into force, we shall see once more a circulation of wealth in this country which will render unnecessary the continuance of the cuts in administration and benefit which we are forced to support to-night.

Miss LEE: On a point of Order. I wish to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of procedure. Owing to the time limit it will not be possible for me, in this Debate, to reply to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) in which he said that I represented spongers and that I stated a point of view in this House which encouraged sponging. I consider that these statements are not only lies, but insulting lies, reflecting on the people whom I represent, and, since I cannot intervene at this point to put the contrary view and correct the hon. and learned Member, I wish to ask what protection I can have from the Chair?

Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises. Unfortunately, in this House as in other institutions we have to be bound by time. There is a time limit on everything, and, obviously, every hon. Member who feels aggrieved by a speech cannot have the opportunity of answering that speech. That is quite obvious, and, in the circumstances, I am afraid that I cannot advise the hon. Lady as to how she is to act. As regards the remark to which the hon. Lady refers, I think it has already been pointed out that remarks of that kind are often made, and are, perhaps, regretted afterwards. I do not know what the term "sponger" really means, but I believe there are such persons in every walk of life.

Mr. TOM SMITH: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member may now wish to withdraw his statement.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I think it will be agreed that it is not easy at this stage to say anything new about the Economy Bill, as the points involved have been very well covered in the course of the Debate. Before we take a vote upon it, however, it is desirable that we should emphasise what we on this side believe to be the real meaning of this Measure. Is it what it seeks to be, namely, a Bill to ensure economies in order to balance the Budget? If that be so, its authors, whatever their merits or demerits as economists, are certainly bad psychologists. They have failed to convince their victims or the public, that their proposals are fair and necessary and they have aroused bitter resentment among those whose standard of life is being forced down. They have badly miscalculated the human factor and the human reactions, and these are of great importance in connection with all that we do in this House.
They miscalculated those human reactions seriously in the case of the Navy. The loyalty and esprit de corps of the "silent Service" are traditional, and when that Service became articulate in discontent, it did more to produce effects abroad than any of the other reasons for loss of confidence which have been advanced to us. This, it seems to me, is a serious criticism of the Bill and its authors. The teachers also are aroused and united as never before. Even the partial retreat of their alarmed attackers has not mollified the feeling of soreness and injustice among them. The police have been publicly humiliated, and other classes affected have increasingly felt that they have been singled out for special attack.
What of the unemployed? What do they think and feel about it? My hon. Friends beside and behind me have tried to picture to the House their reactions. There is more in it than the actual cut in benefit, more even than the imposition of the needs test, bad as those proposals are. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Batley (Sir B. Turner) speak about the domestic side of this matter. It seems to be forgotten that unemployment relief has always
been fixed on a subsistence level, which left no margin at all for reasonable sacrifice, and that any diminution of the amount was bound to send the figure below the subsistence level.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The hon. Member says that it has always been fixed at the subsistence level. Will he say that the original 10s. a week in the Insurance Act was the subsistence level?

Dr. SHIELS: I do not mean to say that it has always been accurately fixed at the subsistence level. I meant that the standard was that of the subsistence level, and the standard of subsistence may vary under different dispensations. I repeat that the standard of life of the unemployed man has been fixed on the subsistence basis. There is no question about that, and I need not emphasise the points which have been made already, in regard to the very large proportion which rent and overhead charges bear to the amount received. I believe there is reason to apprehend, if 'this cut is carried out and if the public assistance committees act in the same spirit as the Government, a grave physical condition of semi-starvation among our unemployed people during the winter. One feels special sympathy for the women-folk in the homes of the unemployed. They are the best Chancellors of the Exchequer in the world, but their task this winter will be more than even they will be able to achieve.
These things, have already been said by hon. Members on this side, but the point to which I wish to call attention, and which I think has not been emphasised, is that there is something involved other than the mere deprivation of physical necessities. What hurts great numbers of the unemployed even more is the gesture of impatience with their presence. This Bill is a proclamation of the weakening of the community consciousness of brotherhood and kinship. The unemployed are regarded as a nuisance. The presence of a few impostors and "lead-swingers" among the unemployed must not blind any hon. Members to the fact that in the vast majority of cases they are very sensitive. They have been suffering and many are now in despair. They are the victims of an outworn system for which all of us are responsible except in so far as we try to alter it. The
human side of this problem appeals to me. One can picture the humiliation of the husband and the father when he has to make suffer along with him those for whom he would only too gladly work and fight. He has now had added to the miseries of his former condition the advertised contempt of the community. I do not say that this is intended by those who make these cuts. They are merely indifferent to or careless of the workless man's position.
As to the taxpayers and ratepayers —those not personally involved in these cuts—what are they thinking of it? I do not believe I am putting it too strongly when I say that many of the public are definitely uneasy about it all. They see the Income Tax scales extended and the allowances reduced, a condition of things which penalises twice over many of them whose incomes have been suddenly and savagely cut down. They see all those over whose remuneration the Government has any control being compelled to suffer. They see also that the amount of savings effected is only such as could have been equalled by some slight increase of general taxation, direct and indirect, and by dealing more drastically with the Sinking Fund. Surely, then, we are justified in saying, if the Bill is only what it seems to be, that it is as unwise from its promoters' point of view, as it is cruel from all other points of view. The game is not worth the candle, if the Bill is only to be taken at its face value. But as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) pointed out there is something more than the face value of the Bill to be considered.
We have to ask if the authors of this Bill regard it, not so much as desirable or necessary in itself, but as a means to an end. And is that end the lowering of the standard of life of the vast majority of the people? [HON. MEMBERS "Certainly not"] That may seem a hard thing to say, and I believe that many who feel it necessary to support this Bill have no such intention. But, undoubtedly, it has been good Tory doctrine for the last few years. The slogan has been, "Wages must come down in order to have industrial prosperity," and as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, and as T have always strongly held, one of the greatest achievements of the Labour Government.
during these last two years has been that it has been a bulwark between the worker and those who have been just itching to do the very thing that is being done now in this Bill. That has been one of the greatest merits in the existence of the Labour Government.
No doubt this policy of reducing wages is quite conscientiously held by those who believe that it is necessary for the success of industry, and that it will not recover without such a process. There are others, however, who have watched with jealous eyes the corning into power of the common people. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that undoubtedly an opportunity was seen in this crisis, and it was seized. The Labour Government was left only two alternatives—either to go out or to consent to proposals which were antagonistic to the whole history and ideals of the Labour movement. The country was said to be on the brink of ruin, but now we know that this was never true. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is the hon. Member aware of what was said by a right hon. Friend and colleague of his I"] Many things were said by many colleagues, but, as I say, now we know that this was not true.
Desperate attempts are now being made —some were made this afternoon, and others are being made in the country and will doubtless be made more and more—to fasten a joint responsibility for these proposals on the Labour Cabinet. We repudiate that responsibility! The National Government is afraid and ashamed of what it has done. It claims credit for saving the country, and at the same time it says that the Labour Government must take part of the blame for the way it saved the country. We may regret that the Labour Cabinet listened to their altered Chancellor so long, but we remember the circumstances, and we rejoice that they had the courage to call a halt when they did; and we are proud that that final refusal was on the meanest item of all, the cut on the unemployed. Objection has been taken to the word "plot." It does not matter about words, but what was done by the bankers and by the Tory and Liberal negotiators has at any rate failed in its main intention. It certainly got the Government out, but it did not secure an acceptance of all or any of these proposals, and instead of
being wrecked, the Labour party is now stronger and more united than ever in its history.
The fundamental principles of this Bill are, first, to lower the pay of public servants whose standards were hindering wage cuts in industry, and, secondly, to check the development of social services and equality of opportunity and service for all. Many who, for well intentioned but short-sighted reasons, support this Government must have many qualms when they realise what are the forces behind this Bill, and what the Bill is going to lead to. Wages are to come down all round, so that employers may prove that they are as patriotic as the Government. At the same time, the Prime Minister calls for wise and courageous spending. Surely that is a mockery to those millions who are in money difficulties by this Bill, as well as to those with goods to sell. Under-consumption, as has been pointed out very well by a number of my hon. Friends, is the real trouble, and the proposals of this Bill will prevent wise and courageous spending by making and encouraging reduced incomes for millions of people.
The social services again are the avenues of equal opportunity for the common people. A great deal has been said, and rightly said, about the teachers' cut—a very hard one on the teachers, severe and unjust. But the real attack is on the education of the children of the people. This is the answer to the Labour Government's Bill to increase the school-leaving age by one year.
Not very much has been said about the doctors and chemists. I have found that it is not easy to evoke sympathy in this House for doctors, and I have not tried for chemists. They are said to have taken their medicine without flinching, but it was hinted by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) that they were at the time unaware that more income and petrol taxes were awaiting them. What their present state of mind is we cannot say. Here again, however, the real attack is not on the doctors and the chemists, but on the social service of which they are a part. Royal Commissions have shown that the National Health Insurance system, while good as far as it goes, is quite inadequate. Hon. Members who
know these reports know that the provision of specialist services, of services for dependants, and many other developments are required before it can be said to be an adequate service for its purpose. Yet, instead of improvements, we have this setback, and the status of working class medical service is definitely lowered compared with that of other sections of the community.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the hon. Member explain if he really suggests that through this Bill or in the White Paper there is any suggestion that we shall cut down the consultant service?

Dr. SHIELS: No, but the hon. and gallant Member knows that I was not referring to that, but that I was referring to the developments foreshadowed by the Royal Commission. Further, I want to point out that this National Health Insurance is a vital service. We do not sufficiently emphasise, in view of the wonderful developments of medical and surgical skill that these ought to be available in full and ample measure to the very humblest members of the community. They are not so just now, and the gesture of this Bill in regard to their medical service is definitely to lower its status. The cuts on the police are very surprising, and these surely can only be made on the principle that all public servants must have their standard lowered. I would, in passing, mention this as further showing the bad psychology in this Bill. We know there have been cases, in London and elsewhere, which have shown that policemen have great temptations to face. We are proud of the standard of our police, we wish to preserve it, and I must confess that a more foolish economy than this would be hard to imagine.
Most of the bad features of this Bill are the products of our own home Toryism of the most reactionary type. It lacks the Disraeli touch! I was glad to notice in the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) this afternoon that something of that better spirit was revealed. We understand, however, that for the worst features of the cuts the American or British bankers or both were responsible. It has been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend that there has been a world feeling against our unemployment system, but surely, on what-
ever side of the House we sit, when we read of the position in the United States, when we read of the millions there subjected to the soup kitchen type of charity, indiscriminate and inefficient, we must have great satisfaction that our unemployment system here is at least dignified and efficient; and it seems to me an extraordinary thing that we should be submitting to modify our system at the dictation of those who are struggling in America or anywhere else against a proper unemployment relief system for their countries.
The occasion of this Bill was to be, as has been pointed out, to enable the pound to keep at its former level. That necessity has gone, and we have been told that it was the best thing that ever happened, which is very curious. The elaborate calculations about cost of living which the Prime Minister gave us in his broadcast address and elsewhere have all gone. The unemployed will not have 11½ per cent. less to pay for food than they had two years ago; they will have a great deal more than now. The whole basis of argument for this Bill and for these cuts has gone, and therefore we, on this side, suggest that the Bill should be withdrawn. Even yet it is not too late. Even at the eleventh hour it would be to the credit of this Government if they withdrew the Bill altogether. It is not needed to balance the Budget, and what it will do is to unbalance the budgets in millions of humble homes throughout the country. We, therefore, protest against this Bill, and Members on this side of the House, I am sure, have never voted with greater earnestness or enthusiasm against any Measure in this House than they will vote against this Bill to-night.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I do not know whether there is going to be an election or not, but some of the speeches to which we have listened from the other side seem to suggest that some hon. Members are practising what they are going to say on the platforms, and I hope that, when they do, they will add something which we cannot say here, and that is that the present situation of the nation is a position in which it has found itself after more than two years, for which hon. Members opposite are more responsible than we are. I should like to deal
briefly, before replying to some of the points which have been raised, with one or two things about unemployment insurance. The hon. Member who has just sat down was in error, in my view, when he said that the allowances were based on a subsistence level, because if he is right in that, then he means that the Government of which he was a Member were of the opinion that 17s. a week was enough for a man to live on.
7.0 p.m.
This unemployment scheme is based on the principles of insurance, and that is the main reason for the present changes in the policy of insurance. At all events, it cannot be said that the nation is not lending a good hand to help the insurance scheme to keep up its benefits because, whereas when the scheme started the contribution of the State was based on a one-third contribution towards the benefits, at present the State under these new arrangements will be contributing two-thirds towards the benefits. The State, therefore, is making a great contribution towards the unemployed. Those who have spoken from the Front Bench opposite, have been extremely well selected—most judiciously selected in fact—because it has obviously been the policy of the Opposition not to let any Members of the late Cabinet come on the Front Bench at all, if they can help it. The two hon. Members who have spoken have evidently been selected because they are more dissociated from the cuts than other hon. Members who owe it to the House to corns and explain how it was they proposed the cuts which they are now opposing.

Mr. T. SHAW: That is an unwarrantable assertion. There is no Member of the present Front Bench who ever proposed any of the cuts of which he speaks.

Major TRYON: That is taking advantage of the well-arranged fact that the right hon. Gentleman's leader is not in the House. The Leader of the Opposition told us that £56,000,000 of cuts were provisionally decided upon and the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) told us that those cuts were laid before the leaders of the other parties and proposed to them.

Mr. SHAW: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Members of the Front Opposition Bench had proposed those cuts. That is an unqualified error,
and bears not a, single scrap of truth in it.

Major TRYON: I resent the accusation of untruthfulness made by the right hon. Gentleman against his leader in this House. With reference to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who was Solicitor-General in the late Government, I feel that he must have had a very unhappy and anxious time in that Government because all the time that he was sitting there, bringing in little Bills which had nothing whatever to do with the real troubles of the country, he knew really what the real solution was. At the end of his speech he put forward proposals which are nothing less than Communism. They are unqualified Communism, as any hon. Member can see when he reads the conclusion of his speech. If he believes in Communism, he ought to sit on the back benches with the other hon. Members who were supporting it all the time.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. and gallant Member is wrong. I do not believe in Communism, but he does not understand the difference between Communism and Socialism.

Major TRYON: I know that the difference is this: The Communists are the people who believe in Socialism and the "Socialists" are the people who sit on the Front Bench and do not. I appeal to the House to read the concluding part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, and I challenge anybody to deny that that was a very effective pronouncement in favour of Communism. If he is in favour of Communism, he ought not to have been sitting on the Government benches all the time, but higher up among the people who believe all the time in the thing he is only just beginning to advocate. The hon. Member who preceded me spoke of the Tory policy of reducing wages. May I say, having sat in this House as a Conservative for over 20 years, that I regard that statement as an absolutely inaccurate statement of the policy of the Conservative party? If there is anything in the policy of wages having to come down when other things come down, that is the Free Trade doctrine and not the Tory doctrine. The suggestion has been made that all these difficulties can be got
over by the simple expedient of taxing the rich and distributing the money, that money would then circulate widely, more employment would be given and everything would be all right. It may be that, if that policy was further developed, it would bring success, but the point I make is that we have had this experiment tried under the late Government when heavy additional taxes were put upon those who were better off, and, so far from the poorer section of the community being better off under the additional taxes of the rich, there was far more unemployment and far more distress.
With reference to the problem of the teachers, one man at all events has somewhat overstated the case in regard to education. Everybody ought to acknowledge that this country and all parties have made great efforts by good will and by financial expenditure to improve the educational system of this country. Mr. H. G. Wells, who does not seem to be very good at figures, said that, when we had increased our expenditure from £31,000,000 to £88,000,000, that was a meagre expenditure on education. [Interruption.] Hon. Members think it is, but my point is that we have enormously increased our expenditure, and that it has been done under all the Governments. Among the cuts which were provisionally suggested, proposed, or whatever the phrase now used is to describe things which were really done, the cut on the teachers' salaries was one. We hear that there was some examination of the idea of making a 20 per cent. cut, as suggested in the May Report, but that the late Government moved rather in the direction of a 15 per cent. cut. That was a view which they put forward in these provisional—or whatever the word may be—proposals. There 'vas another figure, a cut of 12 per cent., which was a proposal made by two gentlemen on the May Committee who are described by hon. Members opposite as representatives of the Labour party. We have, therefore, three possible steps, a 20 per cent. scale, a 15 per cent. scale and a 12½ per cent. scale. It is not for those who submitted proposals or who provisionally suggested a 15 per cent. cut to wax very indignant over the present proposals of the Government which are 10 per cent.
May I add that not many Members of the House can have failed to be impressed by the moderation, the courtesy and the admirable way in which the deputations of teachers put their case. I had a deputation from my own constituency which put the case admirably, more particularly the difficulties of those who, living on a definite scale, had committed themselves in various ways with housing rents or payments for houses. We are all grateful to the teachers for putting forward their proposals and their difficulties in such a moderate fashion. I got my teachers to put their case in writing, which they did in a very admirable and short way, and I sent it on to the Minister of Education. Every Member of the House is glad that it has been found possible to modify the provisional arrangements of 15 per cent. to the more moderate arrangement of a 10 per cent. cut. A reference has been made which might as well have been omitted by the hon. Member opposite to the difficulties in the Navy. I wish he had not raised the matter, but, if he chooses to raise it, he will regret the discussion which he started. There was not a Member on this side of the House who was not shocked at the way some hon. Members opposite treated lightheartedly the sad news that came of the disturbances in the Navy.

Mr. KIRKWO0D: We were delighted with the news.

Major TRYON: I notice that some hon. Members were not quite so delighted when the present First Lord of the Admiralty announced that he had found the arrangements for these reductions prepared before he took office by the late Government.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: That has already been denied.

Major TRYON: I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman tried to get out of it. I am not making an attack on him. The attack I am making is that hon. Members ought not to take satisfaction at grievous national difficulties of that kind.

Mr. SIMMONS: If only the unemployed had that spirit, you would sit up.

Major TRYON: There have also been speeches made with reference to foreign
pressure being put on the Government of this country. The real difficulty with reference to foreign pressure is the difficulty, as the late Solicitor-General rightly said, with reference to our trade balance. At present there is some difficulty in paying for our imports, and we may very soon have to pay for our imports by borrowing. I am not going into a discussion which cannot be raised now, but I hope in some way or other that this country will soon be relieved of being in a position so dependent on foreign nations for payments and loans. One thing that has occurred to me, looking on and not being in charge of the Department involved in this Bill, in the very remarkable speed with which the present Government brought forward their proposals. In a great emergency it is remarkable that the Government should so soon and so rapidly be able to bring in proposals of no wick and sweeping a character. I have given rather too much credit to the present Government, because we found that so much of the ground had been prepared beforehand by our predecessors.
Though we on this side of the House are all supporting the Bill and intend to vote for the Third Reading, we know that many of these cuts are serious cuts, and we wish that the nation had never got into the financial position which has rendered these cuts necessary. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor-General in the speech which he made, or rather read to the House—[Interruption.]—I do not say the whole speech was read, but some of the portions which contained the most bitter and most unjust accusations against the Tory party were deliberately read in a cold blooded manner. He made the point very ingeniously that these cuts were no longer necessary, that they had been brought in, proposed and originally planned by our predecessors in order to solve the difficulty of the pound. The difficulty was to keep up the value of the pound. There was the danger of what would happen if the pound fell in value. We all know what would happen. I think that, the hon. and learned Gentleman was a little too light-hearted about the possible consequences to the poor people of this country if the pound goes lower still. After all, we are dependent on an enormous amount of supplies from overseas. He said that we need not have
these cuts because the pound has gone anyway. It seems to me, however, that if the pound has gone, the necessity for balancing our Budget remains, and that' there may be an even stronger case for balancing it, because we become more and mare dependent on that in the grave difficulties in which we are involved in connection with foreign exchanges.
There has been some discussion about the question of mobilising our overseas investments, and some Members have suggested that we can get out of our difficulties by mobilising those investments. They gave a very large total for them, but before they gave that total it would have been better to have examined how it was made up. For instance, when they gave a figure of our overseas investments and suggested that they should be mobilised in order to avoid the cuts which are to be found in this Bill, they included the whole of our investments in Australia, where, incidentally, the pound is of less value than it is here. It does not seem to be a very helpful suggestion that the pound in Australia should come to the assistance of the pound here, which is in a better position. An enormous amount of the money invested overseas, we are told, is invested in the Argentine. A large part of that money is in pounds; therefore, it is not in any way available to strengthen the position of the pound here. The plain fact is that the only part of our overseas investments which is of considerable value, so far as I know, are our investments in dollars, but, if we are to go on with our present evil balance of trade, we had better keep those dollar securities and retain our interest on them, which is in dollars, in order to maintain our imports. If you spend in a year or two all your dollar investments, you will very soon find yourself without that very valuable addition to your power to import from the United States and Canada.
It is suggested that one of the ways in which we can avoid these very heavy cuts is that nobody should be allowed to have an income of over £1,000 a year. It was the suggestion of the Independent Labour party. I looked at the Front Opposition Bench when it was made, and I did not see much enthusiasm for the proposal. I venture to say to the Independent Labour party that that is not a
complete solution of the problem of equality of sacrifice. Are you going down to £800? Are you going below £360? I want to know where you would stop, and why the hon. Member who has put the suggestion forward stopped at £1,000. I wonder whether that is anywhere near his own income. That point comes out even more fully when I mention the occasion—it was during the Debates on this Bill—when the same hon. Member showed an enthusiasm for the British Army which was not very conspicuous in some of the earlier portions of his career. He was very sorry that the pay of the private soldier was to go down.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are you making reference to the Prime Minister?

Major TRYON: No, to the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway). He put forward the suggestion that no one should have over £1,000 a year and mentioned the fact in connection with the one particular point of the pay of a private soldier, which is something under 3s. a day. It seems that the view of the Independent Labour party is that, if they can get £3 a day and the private soldier 3s., the solution of the problem of equality of sacrifice is complete. When he recommends his policy to the constituencies, he will no doubt say, "We should all be free to get £3 a day and the soldiers should get as much as 3s. a day; vote for so-and-so, and equality of sacrifice."
As the Front Opposition Bench seems to be getting rather fuller, I will refer to the attitude of the late Labour Government. That was not the only Labour Government in the world. Reference has been made to the difficulties of other countries, and I will refer to one. There have been almost identical difficulties, though greater in extent, in Australia, but the people of Australia showed a rather different spirit from the spirit shown by the Leader of the Opposition in this House. When he spoke, he spoke of "the movement." The late Solicitor-General has moved up a hit since he was in the Government, and he spoke of "the Labour movement." There was not one word in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition which has any reference whatever to the grave peril of the nation as a whole. It was "the Labour movement" first and all the time, and the nation only came in when he was in office.
What happened in Australia? [Interruption.] It is true that they had a conversion, but they also had cuts in everything, even in war pensions, which I am glad to say are left out of this Bill. The cuts in Australia were far heavier than the cuts we have here. They are getting out of their financial difficulties connected with the balance of trade by discriminating in the matter of their imports and by heavy cuts, heavier than anything we have in this country. They had something which was also different from what we have in this country. They had a Labour Government which, when they found the country in difficulties, stood to their guns. They had a Labour Government which, after being in office for a long time, found the country in difficulties, and they stuck to their job, and they are carrying the country through.
It may be said that it is a strange thing for some of us Conservatives to be sitting next to those with whom we have been opposed. I find myself next to three men who, I think, are by universal acknowledgment three of the greatest men that the Labour movement has produced—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. We support them because they are trying to see the country through its difficulties and because they have not run away. They are not sufficiently agile. If they bad only run away, they might have been in "the movement." I am sorry to see that three members of the Liberal party also seem to be in "the movement." We in the Liberal party—[Laughter.] I am speaking to the best of my accomplishments for the Government. I am not speaking as a Conservative Member. If I were, there is a good deal I would say. I am speaking for the Government, and I say that if you find the overwhelming mass of the Liberal party supporting this Bill, as we shall, if you find the Conservative party voting for it, as we shall, it is because we consider that, as the Leader of the Labour party said in an unguarded moment, there is a crisis; it is because we think that the plans prepared by the late Government are the best way in an emergency to deal with this problem. Because there is a grave national emergency, we and the Liberals
and a limited number of Members who supported the late Government, will go into the Lobby to vote for this Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is very refreshing to find the right hon. and gallant Member let himself go. I have known him for many years as Minister for Pensions when he was hampered by departmental limitations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I only want to refer to one observation of the right hon. Gentleman's, and I am sure that he does not mind my replying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] We are working under the Guillotine and hon. Members must at least allow us our ration. When he talks about the late Labour Government running away, he seems to overlook a recent speech made by the Minister of Health in the country. When this so-called crisis occurred, what did the Prime Minister do? He ran away if that is a correct description. It was stated by the Minister of Health in the country that the Prime Minister went to His Majesty and handed in his resignation. I do not want to go into details, but we know that influences were brought to bear; otherwise the Prime Minister would not be leading the Government now. [HON. MEMBERS; "Divide!"] Running through these Debates has been the accusation that the unemployed are spongers and cadgers. The unemployed can be divided into three sections. There are those who have been deprived of work through rationalisation. That is a natural process; it has happened in every industrial country, and it is certainly not their fault. Another section is unemployed through deflation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] That has been a deliberate policy of restricting credit, and men have been thrown out of work. The third section are seasonal, casual and part-time workers. None of these are spongers or cadgers. But I would remind hon. Members of the words of a great Russian philosopher, Chekov:
We are all cadgers on God.
The trouble is that we misuse and waste God's plentiful bounty and allow people to go short in the midst of abundance—. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd Septem-
ber, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 242.

Division No. 500.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of
Iveagh, Countess of


Aitchlson, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Jones, Liewellyn-, F.


Albery, Irving James
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l., W.)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrld W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Knight, Holford


Atholl, Duchess of
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Atkinson, C.
Dixey, A. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Btwdley)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Balniel, Lord
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Beaumont, M. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Edge, Sir William
Lelghton, Major B. E. P.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Berry, Sir George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Elmley, Viscount
Liewellin, Major J. J.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Waston-s. M.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Locker-Lampion, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Birkett, W. Norman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Blindell, James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ferguson, Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fielden, E. B.
Lymington, Viscount


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Boyce, Leslie
Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bracken, B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Forestler-Walker, sir L.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francls E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macquisten, F. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berke,Newb'y)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Buchan, John
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gillett, George M.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. sir John
Marjoribanks, Edward


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Glassey, A. E.
Markham, S. F.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Butler, R. A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Butt, Sir Alfred
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Millar, J. D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Granville, E.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Campbell, E. T.
Gray, Milner
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Carver, Major W. H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muirhead, A. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Unlv.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hall. Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
O'Connor, T. J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hammersley, S. S.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Christie, J. A.
Hanbury, C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Church, Major A. G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Harbord, A.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Cockerill, Brig. General Sir George
Harris, Percy A.
Penny, Sir George


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hartington, Marquess of
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Colfox, Major William Phillp
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hasiam, Henry C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Colman, N. C. D.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Colville, Major D. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Cocper, A. Duff
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pybus, Percy John


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cowan, D. M.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Ramsbotham, H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remer, John R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Croom-Johnson, R. P,
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Rhys, Han. C. A. U.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Skelton, A. N.
Train, J.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Smithers, Waldron
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Ross, Ronald D,
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Rothschild, J. de
Somerset, Thomas
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbary)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Saimon, Major I.
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)
Wells, Sydney R.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
White, H. G.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Wilson, a. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Withers, Sir John James


Savery, S, S,
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Wolmer Rt. Hon. Viscount


Scott, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Womersley, W. J.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Thompson, Luke
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Simms, Major-General J.
Thomson, Sir F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.



Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Titchfield. Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Commander Sir B. Eyres Monsell




and Major Sir George Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hllisbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Leonard, W.


Alpass, J. H.
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Ammon, Charles George
Gill, T. H.
Logan, David Gilbert


Angell, Sir Norman
Gossling, A. G.
Longbottom, A. W.


Arnott, John
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Longden, F.


Aske, Sir Robert
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lunn, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Macdonaid, Gordon (Ince)


Ayles, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McElwee, A.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, V. L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Groves, Thomas E.
McKinlay, A.


Barr, James
Grundy. Thomas W.
MacLaren, Andrew


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McShane, John James


Banson, G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bowen, J. W.
Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Manning, E. L.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
March, S.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marcus, M.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Haycock, A. W.
Marley, J.


Bromfield. William
Hayes, John Herry
Marshall, Fred


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mathers, George


Brooke, W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff. A.)
Maxton, James


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Messer, Fred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mills, J. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Henderson, W. W, (Middx., Enfield)
Milner, Major J.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Herrlotts, J.
Montague, Frederick


Buchanan, G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bargees, F. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morley, Ralph


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cameron, A. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cape, Thomas
Hollins, A.
Mort, D. L.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hopkin, Daniel
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Charleton, H. C.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smetbwick)


Chater, Daniel
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muff, G.


Clarke, J. S.
Isaacs, George
Muggeridge, H. T.


Cluse. W. S.
Jenkins, Sir William
Murnin. Hugh


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Naylor, T. E.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Noel baker, P. J.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oldfield, J. R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Daggar, George
Kelly, W. T.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Dallas, George
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palin, John Henry


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Paling, Wilfrid


Davies, D. L, (Pontypridd)
Kinley, J.
Palmer, E. T.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhcughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Day, Harry
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Perry, S. F.


Dukes, C.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dunnico, H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Ede, James Chuter
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawrence, Susan
Pole, Major D. G.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Potts, John S.


Egan, W. H.
Lawson, John James
Price, M. P.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Freeman, Peter
Leach, W.
Raynes, W. R.




Richards, R.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wallace, H. W.


Richardson, R. (Houohton-le-Spring)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Watkins, F. C.


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Ritson, J.
Sorensen, R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Romerll, H. G.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Rowson, Guy
Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
West, F. R.


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Strauss, G. R.
Westwood, Joseph


Sanders, W. S.
Sullivan, J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sawyer, G. F.
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Scrymgeour, E.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scurr, John
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Sexton, Sir James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sherwood, G. H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Shield, George William
Tout, W. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Townend, A. E.
Wise, E. F.


Shillaker, J. F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Shinwell, E.
Turner, Sir Ben
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Vaughan, David



Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Sinkinson, George
Walkden, A. G.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Sitch, Charles H.
Walker, J.
B. Smith.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1931.

CLASS V. MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of Workpeople and their Families within Great Britain and Oversea (including expenditure additional to that authorised under section 2 (1) of the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909); and sundry services, including services arising out of the War.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): This Supplementary Estimate, as will be seen from the printed Paper which hon. Members have had, asks for the sum of £13,700,000 to cover the remainder of the financial year, and in considering it we must have regard to what would have been
necessary if the Bill which has just received its Third Reading had not been taken. Without the economies provided for in that Bill a further sum of something like £30,000,000 would have been required. If the precedent of former years had been followed, that sum of £30,000,000 would have been provided by borrowing. As hon. Members will recall from some figures I gave the other day, the policy of borrowing, had it been pursued, would have meant that at the end of the financial year the debt of the Unemployment Fund would have been £145,000,000. At this moment the debt is about £102,000,000. The authorisation at present is £115,000,000, and we estimate that this £115,000,000 will run out at some time towards the end of November. As is well known, the policy we have adopted is to stop borrowing and to provide that in future all charges shall be met out of current revenue.
The general case for the various items to which I shall refer has been fully debated on various stages of the Bill during the last few days, but I will just give some explanation of the figures themselves, and, should there be anything further which hon. Members wish to know, any questions they have to ask will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The first item is a sum of £1,700,000 required for contributions to the Unemployed Fund for insurance benefit. That is the amount required to be provided by the State in consequence of the raising of the State contributions from 7½d. to 10d.; the extra sum of £1,700,000 is required to make up
the difference between 7½d. and 10d. up to the end of the financial year. The next items are for grants to the Unemployment Fund for transitional payments, and the cost of administration, amounting to £3,000,000. When these Estimates were originally framed by my predecessor about a year ago, the estimate of the amount required was put at £30,000,000, but hon. Members will see that this extra sum is required in consequence of changes made by the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2 and No. 3) Acts. The No. 2 Act was passed by the late Government in order to extend the transitional period for a further term of six months, and the effect of that was to add something like £5,000,000 to the transitional payments for this year. Therefore, we get the original Estimate of £30,000,000 plus £5,000,000 in consequence of the extension of transitional benefit up to April, 1932. The No. 3 Act was the Anomalies Act which produces a reduction, but in the current year it is not expected that the reduction or saving, so far as transitional benefit is concerned, will amount to a substantial sum, and it will probably be in the neighbourhood of £500,000.
On the other hand, as has already been explained, the proposal, as indicated in the White Paper, to limit insurance benefit to 26 weeks will add to the number of persons drawing transitional payment. The proposals in regard to a reduction of benefit, in so far as they apply to transitional payments, and the application of a needs test, will, in the current financial year, result in a saving to the fund of about £4,000,000. The effect of these additions, that is the extension of the transitional period and the 26 weeks rule, taken in conjunction with the reductions, that is the cut in benefit and needs test, will result in a net increase of £3,000,0000 to the £30,000,000 which has already been voted, and that is the £3,000,000 which this Estimate provides.
The deficiency grant of £9,000,000 is the sum required to balance the Insurance Fund without any further borrowing after the £115,000,000 to which the House has already given its sanction is exhausted, and it is estimated that this £115,000,000 will be exhausted somewhere about the end of November. As will be seen from the White Paper the estimated deficiency
for a full year is £22,200,000, and £9,000,000 is the sum which will be necessary to carry on to the end of the financial year. I do not think I need say any more in regard to the figures. In making this Estimate we have taken all the factors into consideration, and we have provided for £9,000,000 to carry on to the end of March. These are the reasons why this Supplementary Estimate is necessary.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does this Estimate mean that we still have to provide further money from the State, or does it mean that the fund will be self-supporting at the end of 26 weeks?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The £9,000,000 will be necessary to carry us on to the end of the financial year.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
The Minister of Labour, in his usual courteous manner, has given us a clear outline of the financial position as set forth in this Estimate. This Supplementary Estimate is intended to give financial effect to the cold-blooded and vicious policy behind the Economy Bill. The Minister of Labour has admitted that, had it not been for the introduction of the Economy Bill, it would not have been necessary to have voted more money. What we are being asked to do to-night is to give financial effect to a Bill that we have fought from day to day in this House. What is the effect of this Supplementary Estimate? It increases the workers' contributions, it limits the period for standard benefit to 26 weeks, and it reduces the benefits by 10 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must remember that we are not now discussing the Economy Bill. Some of the matters which are now being raised by the hon. Member seem to be matters which have already been dealt with in the Bill which we have just passed.

Mr. LAWSON: This Supplementary Estimate gives effect to the policy of the Bill itself, and by actually taking away large sums of money from the fund devoted to the unemployed it reduces one-third of the whole of the unemployed from the status of the unemployed to pauperism. That is the policy behind the
Economy Bill. The increased contributions cost the workers £6,000,000, the decreased benefit means a loss to the workers of £12,800,000, the change in regard to transitional benefit will deprive them of another £10,000,000 and that means a reduction of £28,000,000 altogether. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question about the changes proposed in regard to transitional benefit. On that item, we are told there is to be a saving of £10,000,000, and I should like to know upon what basis that calculation is made? Is it merely made upon the reduced benefits which it is assumed will result when these people have been before the public assistance committees? I would also like to know if it is a fact that the Ministry of Health have issued regulations to the public assistance committees giving them guidance as to how they are to deal with these people. I want to know if hon. Members are going to have an opportunity of seeing those regulations. I am asking these questions, because I have seen statements in the Press to the effect that regulations have been issued to the public assistance committees, and I think hon. Members have a right to see those regulations.

Sir H. BETTERTON: We have not issued any regulations so far.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I thank the Minister of Labour for that statement, but, as it was stated in the Press that regulations had been issued, I thought it necessary to raise the point in the Debate. I should like to know how the estimate that a saving of £10,000,000 will be made in regard to transitional benefit has been arrived at. What has it been based upon? Has it been based upon the probability that a less number are likely to get transitional benefit as a result of the change which has been made in regard to public assistance committees? I think we ought to have this information, and I can assure the Minister of Labour and the Committee that the public assistance committees—at least those which I have met personally—are very much disturbed about the new duties which are being placed upon them in dealing with transitional benefit. I want to know if any negotiations have taken place with the public assistance committees. I want the Committee to note exactly what it is
that the Government are doing in regard to those committees. In the year 1930–31, the number of people dealt with by the public assistance committees was 758,624. Those were people who received out-relief and had to be questioned by the public assistance committees. Now the Government, without any consultation, are giving the public assistance committees 900,000 more people to deal with, so that they will have to deal with more than double the number that they had last year. I wonder whether the Government realise the nature and amount of the work that has to be done, and whether they have taken steps to negotiate with some representative body on behalf of these authorities, or whether they intend to do so. It is interesting to compare the numbers of people with whom the public asistance authorities had to deal in 1929–30 and last year with the number that they will have to deal with next year. The net effect of the policy of the late Government was, in spite of growing unemployment, to reduce the number of people dealt with by the public assistance committees both in institutions and by out-relief, and the report of the Ministry of Health says that there is little doubt that the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, were responsible for that reduction. The policy of the late Government was to make it possible to deal directly through the Employment Exchanges with the able-bodied unemployed, but that policy is to be directly and immediately reversed by the present Government, so as to throw 900,000 men back upon the Poor Law.
Who are the people who are being dealt with in this way? Listening to the Debates in this House during the last few weeks, I have wondered whether most hon. Members on the benches opposite, if they had to express themselves individually, would do such a thing as is now proposed by the Government, which they are supporting. I have heard the word "sponger" used, but I am glad to say that there are very few Members who would use language of that kind. It is the manner of all renegades to outdo those among whom they move, but I am glad to say I have never heard language like that directly from the benches opposite. I do not think that any man who knows anything about the problem would dare to use such language. Who are
these people? They are some of the best citizens of this country. They are as good as any of us; they are as intelligent men as we are; and, if certain hon. Members had been present on the benches opposite, I should have liked to say to them that there was a time when they themselves knew these men in another capacity, and when they would have given the boots from their feet for those men, as the men would have given their lives for them. I was here shortly after the War, and I know the spirit that prevailed then. It is true that there was the hard-faced profiteer, but I very often heard comments from ex-officers and ex-soldiers who served with them—men who submitted to a common standard of suffering and who saw each other face to face—and there was nothing that they would not have done for each other. Today, these same men come to us—middleaged, good workmen, intelligent men, who love their homes and who love their country. They cannot get work. They rendered great service to this country in the hour of strife. But now we are told that, because they cannot get work, and because they are reduced to this position after years of poverty, they have to become paupers. By these proposals we are making paupers of hundreds of thousands of men who marched and fought for their country—

The CHAIRMAN: I think I must ask the hon. Member to remember what I said before. He must not go back to what is really a Debate on the principle of the Bill which has been passed.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not wish to carry the Debate too far, but the point I was making was that this Supplementary Estimate gives financial effect to the policy of the Bill, that it definitely deals with the transitional payments and reduces the possible period of benefit to 26 weeks, and, finally, casts great masses of people upon the Poor Law.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not correct. It is not this Estimate which does that. That is done by means of the Bill which has already been passed. As the result of that Bill, the payments have to be calculated differently, there being reductions in some cases and increases in others; and it is to give effect to these altered payments that the Estimate is introduced.

Mr. EDE: May I submit that the Bill itself only gives power to the Government to make Orders-in-Council, and we have not seen those Orders-in-Council?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite right; but when those Orders-in-Council are promulgated it will be time to discuss them. We have already passed the Act which gives certain powers, and, therefore, we cannot discuss that; and, equally, we certainly cannot discuss the Orders-in-Council, which as the hon. Member says, we have not seen.

Mr. EDE: With great respect, may I ask to be allowed to finish my point? I want to submit to you, Sir, that what is said on this Supplementary Estimate, on which the money is voted, may very well determine the policy of His Majesty's Government in framing those Orders-in-Council, and that all that we have given so far is power to make an Order-in-Council covering unemployment insurance. It is true that we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that the Order-in-Council will not exceed in severity what is in the White Paper, but I submit that at the moment no policy at all has been given legislative sanction.

The CHAIRMAN: My view upon that point is that those speeches which might have influenced the Government are speeches which either were or could have been made on the Bill. I do not want to confine hon. Members too strictly, but, quite clearly, if I were to allow the hon. Gentleman or any other speaker to get at any length into a discussion on matters which we have already discussed on the Bill, we might be led into a Debate as long as those which we had before.

Mr. EDE: The Guillotine settles that.

Mr. LAWSON: I must accept your Ruling, and I do not mind as long as you allow the Debate, at any rate, some breadth. I am aware of the difficulty of discussing Estimates, but I always thought that when we were discussing Estimates proper—and a Supplementary Estimate is in the same position—we could debate the whole policy of the Department in regard to the matter in question. There is another question that I should like to ask with regard to transitional payments. How often are these cases which are to go to the public assistance authorities to be reviewed? I have
seen a statement by one well-known public assistance committee to the effect that they will have to be reviewed fortnightly, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if that is the case. That is a very important question in connection with the work of the public assistance committees. There has been a general view that these cases would be considered by the public assistance committee, and that then the matter would have been dealt with once and for all, but if they have to be dealt with at regular intervals, and regular domiciliary visits have to be paid, that will mean permanently placing upon the public assistance committees an amount of work which it will be almost impossible for them to carry out.
We are told by the Minister that there is no appeal from the decision of the public assistance committee, and that is another instance of the lowered status of the unemployed man. I should like to ask this question: If there is no appeal on the part of the unemployed man from the decision of the public assistance committee, is it possible for the insurance officer to appeal against the decision of the committee? It is important that we should know whether the public assistance committee is the final authority in deciding whether unemployed people in the transitional period shall get benefit or not. One of the points made by the Minister, when he was dealing with the fund proper, was that half the people who paid insurance contributions had never had any unemployment benefit.

Sir H. BETTERTON: It was not exactly half, but I know what the hon. Member means.

Mr. LAWSON: It is round about one-half. The hon. Gentleman left the impression upon my mind, at any rate, and that was the inference drawn by other Members sitting behind me, that, because they had had no unemployment benefit, they had a right to be protected. But, as the Committee knows, and as those who have had anything to do with this problem know, the people who pay unemployment insurance contributions, whether they have had benefit or not, never complain about the unemployed man, for the simple reason that they themselves may be unemployed very
soon. The only people I have ever heard complain have been the employers, and they have complained because they have said that the effect of unemployment benefit at such a rate interferes with the possibility of reducing wages. So it amounts to this, that the Chancellor has balanced his Budget, and, in doing so, has certainly unbalanced the budget of millions of people. He was cheered as though he was a very eminent, concrete expression of courage and genius, because he had balanced the Budget, but there are millions of housewives who, with a greater genius than his and with equal courage, in the days to come will have to face even a greater problem than he has had to face.
This Supplementary Estimate, while it appears to be so innocent and appears to make a contribution to the unemployed, is actually taking round about £30,000,000 from them, not from comforts, not from luxuries, but from actual necessities. I marvel at the state of mind of the people of the country. I cannot believe that this kind of policy represents their wishes. I know there are people from whom it is expected that the Government will get votes if there is an election, and I know that they are ashamed of this kind of policy. It is often said that we are expecting votes from the unemployed. If the Government appeal to the country soon or late, I do not believe the country has sunk so low, but that, when the appeal is made, people of all classes will protest at the ballot box. While this is a policy that has been put forward by the Conservative party from time to time, long before this crisis arose, they have made no qualifications upon that point. It was made quite clear that, given the opportunity, there was going to be a reduction of the obligations of the State to the unemployed. But, as one of my hon. Friends said yesterday, that is really the policy of the employers, the policy of strict and rigid economy, the policy of the hard faced industrialists, which did infinite harm to the people of the country in past years. So, while the Government undoubtedly will get their majority, while it may appear on the surface that this is making a contribution to the fund, and is actually putting money at the disposal of the unemployed, in fact it is reducing the standard of the unem-
ployed and reducing their status, and, when a vote is taken, we will go into the Lobby against it.

Mr. EDE: I am sure bringing in such an Estimate as this can be a pleasure to no man, and the fact that there are none but official supporters of the Government, that is either a. Minister or a Parliamentary Private Secretary, present on the other side shows that there it; no very violent enthusiasm among Government supporters for this Estimate. [Interruption.] There are three Liberals and one nondescript. I want to deal with this Estimate from the point of view of two very different local authorities. Included here we have grants to local authorities and others under the various Acts. I represent one of the most distressed areas in England. It is generally a very tight race between Sunderland, Gateshead, and South Shields as to which shall be the most distressed area, and there is very often little more than a pocket handkerchief required, when the figures go up, to cover the three. There are 5,300 people in that area, according to the figures given me last week, who will have to go before the public assistance committees as soon as the order-in-council is made, and I want to know, on behalf of the local authorities, what the Ministry is going to do towards meeting the expenses and the personnel who will be required to conduct the necessary inquiries. Is it expected that the public assistance committee is to interview every one of these people?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Milner Gray) indicated dissent.

Mr. EDE: Are they, then, to be judged on written statements which are to be made on the forms that we understand are to be supplied to them at the Employment Exchange? Many of these people have had little or no experience in filling up forms and may find it very difficult, with the best will in the world, to give truthful answers. Frequently, in their endeavours to give truthful answers, they state so much more than the truth that it acts to their detriment. There is not a Member of the House who has met people of that class who have had to fill up War pensions forms and similar things who does not know that frequently they have so misstated
their case as to do themselves an injury and, when a more skilled person, without being a lawyer, has put the case properly for them, a very different decision has been given by the Department. Are the local authorities merely to judge on these statements? Are there to be no representations made when the case is turned down? In the case of a personal interview—presumably there will be some personal interviews where there are questions of doubt—will the same right be accorded to the person as is accorded before a court of referees of taking their trade union representative or other friend with them so that their case may be properly stated, and correct answers given?
I have served as a member of a board of guardians 10 years ago and anyone who has so served knows the hopelessness of some of these people in the state of mind they are in when they come before the committee and the hopelessness of ever getting from them, unless very careful personal inquiries are so made, what their true position and their true needs are. When the calculations are made by the local authorities, have they to take into account such things as income from workmen's compensation, War savings, or the income value of a capital sum that may have been paid to those people in the form of workmen's compensation? This is the kind of questions agitating the minds of nearly 1,000,000 people in this country—probably far more than 1,000,000. You have 900,000 now, and with the policy of despair which the Government are following, is it likely that that number will decrease? Is it not likely that long before the winter is over it will rise to a very great number, indeed? That is the position in the industrial districts. The public assistance committees are facing the task with a feeling of despair, and they will require great and well-considered assurances with regard to the expenses before they will be willing to embark upon the kind of policy which they will have to embark upon if they are to deal with anything like such numbers.
I now come to the area in which I am a member of the public assistance committee—the county of Surrey. It is the county with the least amount of unemployment of any county in England. The
public assistance committee have been informed that they will have to deal with 25,000 people. Quite frankly, when the chairman of the public assistance committee and the Chief Public Assistance Officer gave me the information yesterday morning, I could not believe them. I thought that they had put at least one nought on the end if not two noughts, but they assured me that they had arrived at the figure by an investigation conducted at each Employment Exchange within the county. After all, in the county areas the matters of administration will not be dealt with by the public assistance committee but by the guardians committees. There is this great difference between the public assistance committees and the area guardians committees in a county area, in that the travelling expenses of members of the public assistance committees may be paid, but the Act of 1929 was expressly drafted so as to exclude the payment of the travelling expenses of members of the area guardians committees. The consequence is that if these people have to meet, as they will have to meet, in Surrey to go through those forms day after day and week after week for the next month or so, if they are to get through the number of applications which will come in, you are going to bring about, unless you make some provision for them, the complete breakdown of the guardians committee system. I wish to know whether the Ministry have taken that matter into consideration in their negotitaions with the County Councils Association or whoever they have seen with regard to the position?
There is another thing I should like to know. Are we to he assured that these people, when they are turned down by the guardians committee, or by the public assistance committee in the boroughs, are to have any right of appeal at all? How is the matter to be dealt with? I assure the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary that the resentment with regard to this particular phase of their policy is deeper and more widespread than anything that has happened in this country since the labourers revolt of 1830. There is a feeling of deep and hitter resentment, and unless the situation is very carefully handled
it will lead to the most regrettable scenes during the next few weeks. I am bound to ask the Minister in dealing with this matter, now that he has got his Bill, to realise that the worst Acts of Parliament occasionally can be made a little better by sympathetic, wise and discriminating administration. If any other kind of administration than that is tried the right hon. Gentleman will find himself assailed by difficulties from men who hitherto have held their heads high and have regarded themselves as never likely to be in conflict with law and order. But you are now touching feelings so deep and instincts so strong that the wisest and sanest of men may quite easily be swept off their feet with indignation.
The House has decreed that these Orders-in-Council are to be made, but this House will have no voice with regard to how they are to be framed. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, who may still call himself a Liberal, if the word has any meaning in politics, will be faced during the next few weeks with the task of dealing with this matter in the country, and I ask them in the interests of good order and of getting at least some goodwill from among those helpless and hopeless sections of the community that their administration shall be such as will temper in some way the harshness that this House has decided to inflict upon these people.

Mr. DAVID HARDIE: As the representative of a Division in the largest industrial county in Scotland, I can say that the public assistance committee there are certainly of the opinion that. there will be a great deal of extra work thrown upon them. When this proposition first came before the House of Commons and it was made apparent that the work would fall upon the public assistance committee, the Clerk of the Lanark County Council sent a telegram to all representatives in the country asking them to make representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland to ascertain how they would fare through having this extra burden placed upon them. We met the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he assured us that the matter would be considered and that where it was thought to be necessary the extra ex-
pense would be met up to a point. But there was no definite assurance as to the sum to be paid.
I should like to know whether in this Supplementary Estimate provision is being made of an ample character to cover the cost incurred in this way. Lanark is a large county, and there is a, central committee which sits in Glasgow and reviews the decisions of district councils throughout the area of the county. That entails travelling expenses. Meetings are held during the day, and very heavy cost will be added to the work of the public assistance committee. Naturally they are anxious to know how they stand in this matter. Can the responsible Minister say whether they have been in communication with any county councils or public assistance committees in order to asertain what the demands are to be under the new Act, and if so what basis is to be taken as a guide? There is great alarm in my county as to the work that will be involved, because as an industrial county it has been badly hit by unemployment, and there is sure to be a tremendous amount of work waiting for the public assistance committee to carry out. I should be glad to have an answer to my question.
It is mentioned by the responsible Minister that part of the sum is to meet the extra 2½d. paid by the State. I could have wished that this sum had been trebled in order to save the workman's increased payments. The workman's contribution or his insurance premium has increased by 42½ per cent., and in these days he is faced with an increased cost-of-living and possibly a reduction in wages, and it is most unfair that he should be burdened in the way proposed. In addition, when he becomes unemployed he will be subjected to a 10 per cent. cut in respect of the benefit he would hitherto have drawn, and I regret that it should be so. Can the Minister say whether any instruction has been given for economy to be practised inside Employment Exchanges with a view to the cutting down of staff? Several complaints have been made to me in my, area where men who until recently for many months have been signing on on Wednesdays and Fridays have been subjected to a change and have to sign on on Tuesdays and Thursdays. When the change takes place in the
ordinary way, and they are paid on the Friday, they get their money up to the Wednesday, but when they change over and sign on the Thursday, they are paid only to the Tuesday. In that particular week the men lose 5s. to 6s. Once the men get a job they are told they will be paid this day as lying time and that they will not lose any money ultimately, but it means that for the time being they are robbed of from 5s. to 6s., and it means that they sink further into debt. If economy is to be practised, and it is for the convenience of the Exchanges that the men should sign on. Tuesdays and Thursdays instead of Wednesdays and Fridays, I hope the Minister will see that they receive their unbroken week's benefit.
I am assured by the men that they feel this matter very much. The money lies to their credit so to speak, but they are deprived of it and consequently have 5s. or 6s. less for that week. I should like the Minister to pay attention to the matter, because it is a real grievance. The men who have come to me and complained have been of good type and good character. They are trying to keep clear of debt, but they say that if this thing goes on they are left in a position in which they are compelled to go into debt. I should like the Minister, as far as possible, to see that no man suffers in any attempt to economise at the Exchanges. There is a strong feeling growing up. A demonstration was held in my borough on the matter when 500 or 600 men protested because of the loss that they suffered. I hope the matter will be favourably considered by the Minister.

Mr. BATEY: I intend to oppose the Estimate on all its three heads. I oppose the increase of the Treasury contribution. I criticise the estimate of £3,000,000 as being part of the cost of administration, and I criticise the abolition of borrowing. In regard to the increased contribution, I cannot understand why the Department or the Government should take this easy way of dealing with the fund. There is no statesmanship in it. The Department does not seem to have thought out some different way. Any schoolboy could have said, "We will increase the Treasury contribution from 7½d. to 10d., the workman's contributions from 7d. to 10d., and the employer's contribution from 8d. to 10d." That is
a simple way, but it is not the way in which we have a right to expect that the officials in charge of the Department would act. In speaking on this matter on a former occasion, I suggested that instead of increasing the contributions from the workmen, the employer and the State, the Government should lift the limit of income which restricts the class of people who are to pay into the fund.

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious that the Minister could not do that without legislation. The hon. Member cannot discuss on this matter anything involving legislation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it not possible for an hon. Member, in passing, to make a suggestion that it would be better to raise the income limit in order to avoid this increase of contribution, provided that he does not argue it?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I have noticed to my cost and -sorrow that it is very easy for an hon. Member to make an allusion of that kind before the Chairman can make up his mind to get on his feet, but it is not in order, and certainly it is not in order to pursue it.

Mr. BATEY: My point is, that the Minister could bring more money into the fund in a different way. If I cannot refer to the alteration of the income limit, may I say that there are many people who could be brought into the fund. The school caretaker cannot pay to the fund. The club steward, the huntsman and the kennelman, the keeper, the attendant of a museum, the store keeper at a hospital, the greyhound trainer and gatekeeper, cannot pay to the fund.

The CHAIRMAN: I was waiting for the hon. Member to suggest some particular case where the Minister could bring in these individuals without legislation.

Mr. BATEY: I suggest that he can bring them in without legislation.

The CHAIRMAN: I have not heard the hon. Member mention one class that is shut out by the Act as it stands that can be brought in without legislation.

Mr. BATEY: It does not need legislation to bring in these particular classes.
They are shut out not because of legislation but because of administration, and I suggest that the administration should be widened in order to bring in more revenue to the fund. Let me complete the list, for the benefit of the Minister. The caretaker of a county council office, the school cleaner, the attendant at public baths, the attendant at pit-head baths, the attendant at the public libraries cannot pay to the fund. It would be far better to bring in these people to the fund, without legislation, in order that they might contribute, rather than to increase the contributions. What is the Minister going to say to the Economy Committee in regard to the increased Treasury contribution, in view of the fact that the Committee said:
In our view a large reduction in the present Exchequer charge, as well as the practical elimination of borrowing for this service, are essential.
Their view was that a large reduction was necessary, and the Minister is asking for an increased amount. The £3,000,000 in the Estimate includes the cost of administration. It will include the increased cost of administration for transitional benefit through the public assistance committees. I imagine that the Treasury will have to pay the Poor Law authorities for the use of their machine for the purpose of transitional benefit procedure. How much of this £3,000,000 is to be paid to local authorities for the use of the local machinery to review the cases which will have to come before the public assistance committees. Are you going to pay so much per case or a lump sum down? The number of 900,000 men and women, who are going to be forced to go before the public assistance committee, will be equal to the number now being dealt with by them—

Mr. LAWSON: More. There are about 800,000 being dealt with at the present time.

Mr. BATEY: The number will not stop at 900,000. It will increase, and in a short time there will be something like 1,000,000 cases which will have to be dealt with by public assistance committees. It will mean an increase in the number of relieving officers. I do not know how much of the cost of Poor Law machinery is taken up by payments to relieving officers, but I can imagine that it would swallow a good deal of the £2,000,000,
so that the £3,000,000 which the Government are bringing forward is not going to go very far in paying for the extra cost which will have to be borne by local authorities. But it is not merely a question of these 900,000 men and women who will have to go before the public assistance committee in order that the amount they are to receive might be assessed, but there is also the point as to whether there is to be a continua] examination of these cases by the public assistance committee. Are these men and women to go again and again? How often are the unemployed to go before the public assistance committee?
I object to the abolition of borrowing. There are very few industries at the present time that could continue to employ men unless they borrowed money; most of them are carried on on credit. Why should the Government say that it is wrong and immoral to borrow, that it must be abolished, and that we must make a payment to the fund to stop borrowing? I prefer borrowing. Although the Unemployment Insurance Fund must have paid £10,000,000 in interest since it first started, I prefer borrowing rather than adopt the principle proposed by the Government. This is just the thin end of the wedge. The Government are going to pay £9,000,000 to standard benefit men and abolish borrowing. They may pay £9,000,000 at the present moment, but in the next Budget, probably, whoever is Chancellor of the Exchequer, the amount will be cut down, and the people who will suffer are the unemployed. It is wise to remind the Minister that in regard to the question of borrowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Conservative Government said that he was not afraid of the principle of borrowing and argued that it was quite proper for a fund like the Unemployment Insurance Fund to borrow to a large extent.
If we have to decide between borrowing and putting men out of the Unemployment Fund, and then forcing them on to the public assistance committee, I am in favour of the principle of borrowing. But there was no need for either of these proposals. There was no need for the Government to borrow another £30,000,000, making a total of £145,000,000. There was no need for that or for the present proposal of the Government. They should have accepted
the suggestion of the Trade Union Congress of a special levy. Trade unionists know all about special levies. We have spent our lives in raising special levies, and it would have been possible to have started with men earning £4 a week and £3 a week and have said to them, "We want you to pay a special levy for the benefit of the Unemployment Insurance Fund," and we could have increased that levy according to their ability to pay.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member surely does not suggest that the Government could do that without legislation.

Mr. BATEY: It is a suggestion I make to the Minister of Labour, which I want him to keep in mind, as a much easier way than the proposal of the Government. I know that it is a very narrow Debate and that it is extremely difficult to argue the question without getting out of order. When the unemployed men go before the public assistance subcommittee, or, as one of my colleagues said, the guardians committee, they are not going before the full public assistance committee of the county. When the sub-committee decides a case and assesses the amount that the unemployed shall receive, is that decision to be final, is it to be put into effect straight away, or will the unemployed have to wait until the sub-committee reports to the public assistance committee and the public assistance committee reports to the county council?
I want to utter my protest against the whole of this business. The Government are simply asking for trouble on this question. To-night the House is extremely quiet, as if Members were not taking much interest in the question. But the unemployed will not be so quiet or so indifferent. I believe we will not only see a revolt of the unemployed, but a revolt of the whole of the working classes of the country, because there is nothing so obnoxious to them as the fact that at some time or other they will have to appear before a public assistance committee. The Government would be wise to get to the country as soon as possible, because the longer they put off doing so the greater will be the storm when they do.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There are one or two questions I wish to ask. If a man has received his 26 weeks benefit and comes under the transitional benefit period, who takes particulars of the family income from him? Is it the duty of the man to go to a clerk at the Exchange, or to go to the public assistance committee? Who examines the man as to his family income? Is the man to give his details to Exchange officials, who in turn hand them over to the assistance committee for investigation, or is he to visit the assistance committee to give the details, or does the assistance committee send someone to the Exchange to get the information? It is important to know. If the assistance committee is to do it, it means that the man must go to a new department to make a claim. On the other hand, if the Exchange has to do it, it will mean that extra accommodation must be provided at most of the Exchanges, as well as extra staff. It cannot be expected that an Exchange which is dealing with 101 problems and is already overcrowded can undertake this new work. I hope that the particulars will be taken by the Exchange officials at least in the first instance, and that then they can be handed over. The Anomalies Act is referred to in this Estimate. According to the Minister's statement there is an estimated saving of about half a million. I would like to know whether the advisory committee on the Anomalies Act has yet met?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I got the report this morning.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the report be available to Members?

Sir H. BETTERTON: According to the Act it has to be laid on the Table. It will be available when it is put into force. I cannot say when, but I should say within a week.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The difficulty is that one does not know when the House is going to rise. The Minister is responsible for the working of the Act and it comes under this Vote for the cost of administration. Will he give us any chance of reviewing the work before he operates the regulations. I know that if the House has already risen he can
operate them, and that all that the House can then do is to wait until it meets again and review the work that has been already done. Then as to the estimated saving of £500,000. On what does the Minister base his estimate? Has he estimated any saving from the married women, the seasonal workers, the intermittent workers. What is the anticipated saving on seasonal workers?
My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was called to order when he was on the point of making certain suggestions as to how the fund should be increased. I am going to make one or two suggestions which I hope will be in order, but I am giving you notice, Sir Dennis, to watch me carefully, as you may have to call me to order. The hon. Member for Spennymoor suggested that certain classes of workers might be brought into the fund. I doubt if the Minister has power administratively to bring in those workers, but there are other workers in regard to whom I think he has power. A large number of municipal employés and others are granted exemption by the Minister. Those employés have superannuation schemes and part of the arrangement is that the Minister in concurrence with the local authority, can grant exemption to them. But he has also the power to withdraw that exemption and I submit that the withdrawal of that exemption ought to be considered. These people have not great wages, but they are secure to some extent. I say "to some extent" because unemployment is hitting them now; but I suggest, as an alternative, that if the Minister withdrew the exemption in their case, it would mean some increase of contribution.
There is a second matter in regard to which I think the Minister would have power to act without legislation. I know that he needs to be empowered by an Act of Parliament to increase the contributions of employers and workmen and, as far as I can gather, we are increasing the total contribution of the three parties, to about £55,000,000. That means, in effect, that the State now contributes a little over £18,000,000, the employers £18,000,000 and the workmen £18,000,000. I submit that the State ought to contribute more than one-third. The State ought to make a contribution equal to the total of the employers' and work-
men's contributions. There is nothing to hinder the State making such a contribution, and if that were done then instead of a State contribution of £18,000,000, you would have a State contribution of about £37,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I must now take the hon. Member's advice and call him to order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I understood that the Minister had power, without legislalation, to increase the State contribution. However, I leave it at that, and I turn to the general issues raised by this Estimate. May I say to my hon. Friends on this side, again referring to the saving under the Anomalies Measure, that they created an unfortunate precedent and did an unfortunate piece of work by passing that Measure. A saving of £500,000 has been announced in connection with that Measure and nobody is going to deny that two-thirds of that saving will come from poor people who can ill afford it. I say to the Minister that whatever regulations are going to be made operative in that connection, ought to be the subject of careful scrutiny by the House of Commons, because I am convinced that within the Anomalies Measure and within the powers taken by the Minister there are powers which can be harshly used.
There is also the larger issue referred to by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). He rightly said that this Estimate was intended to polish off the work to be accomplished by the Economy Bill. This Estimate is for the purpose of lowering the standard of those who are on unemployment benefit. When the hon. Member for Spennymoor was speaking, I thought he was about to conic to the point which he has raised on more than one occasion, as to administrative costs, particularly in connection with transitional benefit. Why does the Minister not make a saving on the remuneration of the chairmen of courts of referees? They receive two and a-half guineas for a two hours' sitting. Is there any defence for that?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The fee payable to a chairman of a court of referees is to be reduced forthwith by 10 per cent.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That still leaves it at something like £2 2s. 6d.

Mr. BATEY: It is £2 7s. 6d.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is somewhere about £2 5s. for two hours' work or 22s. 6d. an hour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three hours!"] When the Act started, it was three hours, but few courts now last for more than two and a-half hours. The unemployed now know the Act; the chairmen know it, all the parties concerned know it, and the procedure is simplicity itself compared with what it was previously. But make it three hours if you likes and it represents about 15s. an hour. It would not be so bad if one felt that we were getting value for the money. I never feel annoyed so much about the payment of a guinea or two guineas or £100 in this way—though sometimes it goes against the grain—if we are getting a return for it. The return is more important than the payment; but in this case we feel we are not getting a return, and I suggest that is a direction in which this Estimate could be cut down considerably if the Minister cares to turn his attention to it.
I also wish to ask the Minister what proportion of this £3,000,000 is being granted for running the business of the public assistance committees. Is any portion of this sum being granted for that purpose, and if so, what control will the Minister exercise over the expenditure of that money? Will he have any control over those who investigate, and if so, what kind of control? Will he have any control over the people who will adjudicate, and if so, what kind of control? If you are handing over a portion of that money for local people to investigate, you ought to retain in your own hands some power of control over those who carry out the investigations. The hon. Member for Spennymoor struck what I thought was a human and sincere note towards the end of his speech when he said that this House was quiet and that you would think the subject under discussion was of little concern, but that outside people would resent this Estimate.
This Estimate represents to me the deepest feeling that I have known outside in all my public life. I have never heard anything like it, and I say this frankly to the House of Commons and to the Labour movement here: Never mind the other side, but when this Act
works, as work it likely will, outside in the country it will not be the ordinary political force that we have to meet; it will not be the arguments of the Liberals and the Tories against us. Outside tonight there grows a force—and I say it sincerely and earnestly—that no man here and no woman can yet see the end of. To-morrow there will be presented a petition from thousands of poor people protesting against this Estimate, protesting against the whole philosophy underlying it. It is a work that can hardly be described in ordinary human language, and as to the issues of it, I cannot see who will successfully emerge. It may be that the Government, with the power of Army, Navy and police, will smash the poor people. It may be that those folk will be, as they have always been more or less in the past, sacrificed on the altar, but at the end of it what have you gained? What has been your net gain?
You are sending people out to investigate into the affairs of the poor folk. It is petty and mean. Take, for instance, what is going to happen. A man's circumstances may alter. He has £200. Just imagine what is going to be done under this Estimate. You told men when they were working to save their money, not to waste it, but to put it into War Loan, and a man may have £200 of War stock saved, on your advice. He could have wasted it, he could have spent it on drink, or gambling, or on any foolish enterprise, but he saved it, and at the end of six months he has this £200, and the. Poor Law authorities in Scotland, under the law, say, "We cannot relieve until that sum goes down to £25." You punish that man because he has done what you told him to do. If he had spent it, it would not have been there for you to take.

Mr. REID: If a man who pays Super-tax had wasted his money all through his career, there would have been no Super-tax to pay.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No, but he would have been on the Poor Law. Let me put it to the hon. Member. Here is a decent man who does what you advise him. You say that he will be punished in no way for doing it, and at the end of 26 weeks he has £200.

Mr. REID: People save money to live on.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point I want to make it this, that if the man wasted it, if he refused to save it—

Mr. REID: If everybody wasted what they made, they would have nothing to pay.

Mr. BUCHANAN: My point is very sound. Under the pensions administration a Tory Minister in 1919, to his credit, laid it down that any sum saved should not be allocated as if it was a penalty on decency and thrift, and that has been the policy of successive Governments ever since. Carry out that policy. The man's £200 diminishes, and I want to ask the Minister whom he is to inform as to the alteration of his income. Has he to inform the Poor Law people or the clerk of the Employment Exchange? Whom has he to inform if his son starts work after he has been unemployed? In other words, who is to be his medium of communication?
Beside your investigation, you are going to have a new piece of wrong-doing, partly through ignorance and neglect, and partly you will have imprisonment and persecution arising from it. Men may not disclose their full income or their alterations in income, and there is an investigation consequent upon it. The whole business is repugnant to me. It is an entirely wrong thing, and I would have hoped that the Minister might yet have withdrawn this Estimate. The Government have given concessions to teachers and the Navy, and it seems to me that this movement of ours will be driven from peaceful lines, because the only thing that gets noticed and that gets concessions is the use of force outside, and that seems to be the only hope of getting justice.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not follow the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) except that I would like to congratulate him on having brought forward some important points. It made me even more distressed to hear that unemployed men in England were worse off than in Scotland, because under the destitution test in some of the areas of Britain a man has to part with his last bit of furniture and his last farthing before he can get relief. I do not object
to the Scot being better off than the English so much as I object to the whole policy, and hon. and right hon. Members opposite will rue it before they are much older. I wish to protest against the lack of information given by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks. We cannot part with this Estimate of £13,700,000 without some further explanation. We are not stopping borrowing. The debt, we are told, is £102,000,000— an awful sum. Why, Sir Dennis, you and I were in the Coalition Government, and I at least used to protest against the spending of £120,000,000 wasted in Russian intervention by the present right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) the then Minister of War who carried on a private war of his own which was pure waste of money. This is the accumulation of some years. It started with the borrowing of £34,000,000 in the late Conservative Government. The Home Secretary tries to make our flesh creep by saying that unless the present Government had taken steps to balance the fund by this Supplementary Estimate, the debt of the Unemployment Fund would have risen to £120,000,000. Why, that is just about the amount spent on armaments in the last years of the last Government. We are going on borrowing.
That is a point I want to drive home, because we intend to go on up to £114,000,000. Another £13,000,000 is going to be borrowed. Before the Minister asks this House for these heavy sums of money, I should like to ask whether he has any policy? Is there any policy at all for reducing the number of unemployed? We on this side do not like this system of having to pay out money to men for doing nothing, and our policy is to find them work. I have always understood that that was the policy of the, Conservative party by a certain method, which I will not discuss now, and that it has always been the policy of the Liberal party, by another method. They were going to conquer unemployment. I hope we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman that we are to have the Liberal policy of conquering unemployment dished up and brought up to date, if not with a yellow cover, seeing that we have now gone off the Gold Standard.

The CHAIRMAN: I think we have got off the subject under discussion. The hon. and gallant Member knows the rules
so well that he will recognise that legislation would be required to carry out what he is dealing with.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not pursue that except to say that Ministers do not practice in office what they preached in Opposition. I want to ask how this sum is arrived at as regards the number of unemployed? We have heard figures of the number of men out of work mentioned by the Home Secretary and the Minister of Health, amounting to 3,000,000. The present Government expect to force up unemployment, by the various Measures we have been discussing in the last three weeks, to over 3,000,000. What is the estimate of the Minister of Labour? We have not been told that, and we ought to know. To what does he expect the figure to rise in the coming winter? He ought to tell us, because otherwise it is not fair to ask the House of Commons in this time of financial stringency to vote another £13,700,000, without telling us how many unemployed they expect to add to the present register, and without going into details of any proposals for reducing the number of unemployed by finding work or restoring trade. Are they all dumb since they took office in the National Government? Are we to hear nothing at all of constructive proposals?
I am watching the taxpayers' money. I am the economist on this occasion, and the watchdog of the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who are the ordinary watchdogs of the Treasury, are apparently in their kennels and will not come out. What are we getting in return for this large sum of money? Are we getting a policy, or is this another blank cheque, or a doctor's mandate? If so, I should like to see what the doctor's credentials are, because I am very much in doubt whether he is not rather a quack. I do not think it is fair to ask Parliament to vote this large sum of money to add to the national indebtedness. We were told it had to be stopped when the present Government were formed. They were formed to stop borrowing, and yet we are going to borrow another £13,000,000 because they cannot find work for these men owing to their lack of policy. They have given us no notion of their policy, and it is treat-
ing the Committee with the same contempt that the present Government have shown they intend to treat Parliament.
Then, why is it that this is the one Vote on which we are not to borrow any more? We have this further £13,000,000 and the right hon. Gentleman is to borrow up to £115,000,000. He is very glad of the money, and he is going to spend it in paying men to be idle—the very policy which he condemns himself. We have to put the country through a political crisis to stop borrowing for the Unemployment Fund, that is to say, to stop borrowing to pay men for whom we cannot find work because the Government have no policy. Why is this the only fund for which we are not to borrow? There are some things for which you can always borrow. If we were to be involved in war to-morrow we could borrow £100,000,000 for warfare. You can borrow unlimited millions to kill men, but you are not to borrow for the purpose of saving life and keeping men fit for when trade revives.
We have been told again And again that our lenders in America would not provide the money unless we stopped borrowing for the Unemployment Fund and cut down the benefit and wrecked the scheme. I want to inform the Minister of Labour, if he does not know it already, as he ought to, that the American people themselves have a wholesome admiration for our whole system of social insurance. America is not represented by the gunmen of the Bowery and Wall Street, or by the gangsters of big business in Chicago or the strike-breaking monopolists of the Trusts or the racketeers of Pittsburg. That is not America. The real America which is watching what we are doing at this moment and hoping we shall not wreck this whole scheme, as I am afraid we are doing, consists of God-fearing, honest people, very largely of Anglo-Saxon descent, and they object to being told they have insisted that we should stop borrowing for this fund.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is once more going beyond the subject under discussion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I might also have defended our gallant French allies, who, I believe, did not
insist on this either, but I will not do that now. If the right hon. Gentleman has a conscience he must remember the speeches he has made from the Front Opposition Bench. I cannot imitate his eloquence or his irrelevance, but I have a right to say he has no business to ask us to vote this huge sum of money to be added to the country's indebtedness without our knowing whether the Government have any policy on which their two wings can agree to provide work for men at present idle.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I must support my hon. Friend in his opening remarks when he protested very strongly against the failure of the Minister to give us any real information when he introduced this Vote to the House. During the last two or three weeks we have put a number of very important questions to the Minister affecting the position of these men who will have to submit to a Poor Law test before they can obtain transitional benefit. We were informed a fortnight ago that the Poor Law test was generally to be applied to applicants for transitional benefit. We are entitled to know, before we vote a sum of £13,000,000, exactly what that means in practice so far as these applicants are concerned. Does it mean that a person is not to receive unemployment insurance benefit after he has exhausted his 26 weeks until he is absolutely destitute. That is an important question to which we are entitled to have an answer.
We are also entitled to have an answer to this question: Is it the intention of the Government to issue regulations and instructions to provide some uniformity of administration? It has been constantly pointed out in the House that there are wide variations of practice between one Poor Law authority and another. One authority will interpret its duty to an applicant for relief in a reasonable way. It will not ask him to sell his piano or to sell his house, in which he may have invested £50 or £100, which has been built up by years of savings. It will not ask him to do these things or to make himself absolutely destitute. If he has £40 or £50 in a cooperative society, or in the Savings Bank, it will not penalise him. Are any steps to be taken to secure some minimum measure of decent treatment throughout the country? It will be very
unfair if there are differences. Take the case of a man who lives in a small industrial village in the midst of an agricultural population, where the guardians committee of the county council is composed of a type that very often lacks sympathy with the position of the industrial worker or any understanding of his real difficulties. We know that the smaller the community in which a man lives, especially if he is an isolated individual, the more terrible it is to his feelings to have to submit to some of the treatment that is meted out, I am sorry to say, under the Poor Law. Therefore, I would like to have some guarantee that something is to be done to secure some measure of uniformity.
A week ago I asked the hon. Gentleman whether any instructions or regulations had been issued for the guidance of public assistance committees in dealing with claimants for transitional benefit. The reply he gave me was that no instructions or regulations had been issued, but that regulations were under consideration and would be issued in due course and laid before the House. In view of that answer, I would like the Minister to tell us what he meant in the earlier portion of his remarks to-day, when he told my hon. Friend that no instructions or regulations had been issued for the guidance of public assistance committees, either by his Department or the Ministry of Health. Perhaps he could tell us whether the regulations have been drawn up.

Sir H. BETTERTON indicated dissent.

Mr. TAYLOR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us, then, when they will be drawn up. We ought to have had some indication of what these regulations contained before this Vote was passed. Could' he tell us definitely, in view of his statement to-night, whether in fact any regulations are to be issued at all.

Sir H. BETTERTON: These regulations are now under discussion with the Ministry of Health. I cannot say when the discussions will be finished, but as soon as they are complete the regulations will be made, I cannot be more definite than that.

Mr. LAWSON: Are the public assistance committees being consulted before these regulations are issued?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask further on that point whether the House is—

Sir H. BETTERTON: The Ministry of Health is being consulted. Whether the public assistance committees are, I am not quite sure.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the regulations before they are put into effect? It is putting the House in an unfair position to ask it to pass a Supplementary Estimate of £13,000,000 without having the most vital information upon the matter before them. We are entitled to some information as to the basis of the regulations which will be issued to public assistance committees. What is to be the position of the Government if a public assistance committee refuses to carry out its function? It may be that the regulations are of such a nature that some committees will not feel inclined to carry out the duties that it is proposed to put upon them. What will the Government do in an eventuality of that kind?
We are entitled to have some indication as to the exact way in which the test of destitution is to be applied in practice. Will an applicant have to fill in a form at the Employment Exchange and then have his application automatically referred to the public assistance committee for assessment, or will he be placed in the position, as one is entitled to infer from the answer given to my question a fortnight ago, of having to fill up the ordinary form as an applicant for Poor Law relief. If so, we are entitled to ask that the Government should again insist upon some uniformity.
During the Debate last week one hon. Member produced a form such as has to be filled up by applicants in a certain Poor Law area in the county of Essex, and read a number of the interrogations on that form. When I heard that form, and visualised industrial workers with a long record of insurable employment, people who belong to the churches and chapels in my own community, people who are buying their houses and trying to make the best of things, being subjected to an inquisition of that kind, I could not believe that an hon. Member such as the Parliamentary Secretary and
others of the Liberal party would assent to such things being done. When I took the trouble to get a similar form which is being used at the present time by the public assistance committee in my own constituency, I found there was a very great difference indeed between the character of the two documents. Therefore, I hope we shall have some definite information as to how this test of destitution is to be applied, whether there is to be uniformity, and whether we may have some guarantee that the House of Commons will have an opportunity of discussing the regulations before they become effective.

Mr. McSHANE: We have heard considerable criticism of the fact that the Unemployment Fund has got into debt to the extent of £102,000,000. Surely many of us are forgetting to put things in their proper perspective. The Unemployment Fund has been in existence for 19 or 20 years; it has taken that time for it to get into debt to the extent of £102,000,000; but in the last three years only we have given away almost £100,000,000, certainly £90,000,000, under the de-rating proposals, under which great breweries, that did not require the money at all, which were making fabulous profits, have got in three years altogether a total of £90,000,000. In the one case it is only poor men and women who are getting the money, in the other case it is the people who matter who are getting it, and that is one of the reasons why, although it has taken 19 years for this debt to grow, there is such a clamour against it.
I would like to join in what the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) has said about the regulations. We are being asked to give power to the Minister at a moment when we are actually blindfold so far as knowing anything of what is going to happen. Who is going to issue the regulations? Not even the Minister himself seems to know what those regulations are, and certainly no Member of this Committee has the haziest notion about it. If this House were to rise this week—[Interruption.] If a dissolution were to take place very soon I venture to say that the present Government is not the one which will be in power after the election. If a Labour Government comes in there is the possi-
bility, and the hope, that we shall revoke all this; but, if not, then the whole of these Regulations will actually be enforced without a single word of criticism from any Member of this House. That is a monstrous position. I want to ask the Minister, who admits that he has not had any consultations with public assistance committees, the bodies who have to administer this colossal piece of work—

Sir H. BETTERTON: I said that I myself had had no personal consultation with representatives of the public assistance committees, but I believe they are in consultation with the Ministry of Health. But the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this point.

Mr. McSHANE: I am amazed at that statement, because I am in the closest touch with one of the large public assistance authorities in the country, and on Sunday, certainly, they knew nothing whatever of these consultations. It is not enough that on a matter of this importance the Ministry of Health should be consulting a few selected officials.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I thought the hon. Member asked me whether I personally had been in consultation with them. Both the Ministry of Health and the officials of the Ministry of Labour are in consultation with them now.

Mr. McSHANE: The Minister of Health and the officials of the Ministry of Labour may be in consultation with a few selected persons representative of the Association of Public Assistance Committees, but on this matter they do not speak for the great body of industrial public assistance committees, who know nothing whatever about these consultations. To throw such a colossal piece of work on to the shoulders of voluntary workers without consultation with them is perfectly monstrous. I wish to ask the Minister of Labour if he has thought of this in connection with the regulations? Are men who have been on transitional benefit, and who are to be put through this mean test, to be subjected to Poor Law practice? Is the strict letter of the law with regard to test work to be applied, namely, that a man shall work, it may be 30 hours per week, if he is getting only 2s. 6d. a week? Does it mean, in fact, that the whole Poor Law system—in respect of these
regulations—is to be applied to the men and women who are to be sent to the Poor Law?
Further, I wish to know what attitude is to be taken up under these regulations towards single men or single women who are on transitional benefit? Notwithstanding that the Minister of Health a year last January sent out a circular warning public assistance committees—warning them—that single men and single women qua single men and single women ought not to debarred from public assistance, in fact that is being done by a number of authorities. [Interruption.] I could give the name of one authority where it is actually done. Single men, because they are single, are not to get public assistance at all. I want to know whether, in these regulations, it will be specifically laid down beyond a doubt that single men who are on transitional benefit and whose cases will be dealt with by public assistance committees will get some help; that their cases will be adjudicated upon as if they were actually married men and women in relation to an actual claim for help.
When I envisage the spirit of the Economy Bill being interpreted by rural public assistance committees I can only say that, though the Bill is bad and bitter, it will in its actual administration be ten thousand times worse and ten thousand times more bitter. That is why I regret so profoundly that we have not these regulations before us, because after all they will govern the whole fortunes of the men and women who appear before those public assistance committees. The effect of the Economy Bill will be that a large number of men and women will lose their employment. That has been admitted even by Mr. Garvin, of the "Sunday Observer." I know cases of men who for eight or 10 years have been attempting to purchase their own houses. I know of a case where a man has been paying for some time 20s. 6d. per week, part as rent and part as an instalment payment for the purchase of his house. This man is in receipt of transitional benefit, and, under the new proposals, he will have to appear before a public assistance committee. The money those men have paid as instalments will have to be taken into account by the public assistance committees, because they are governed by the Poor
Law, and must take everything into account which the applicants possess; in fact, they will be acting illegally if they do not take everything into account. If a man owns his own house he cannot come to the public assistance committee for help unless he realises his property. If these men possess War Loan they must realise their investment. The public assistance committees will have to take into consideration the amount received by an applicant who has two families living in his house to help him to carry on his instalment payments. There is no other way out of these difficulties under the new proposals which have been adopted, because any person who comes before a public assistance committee must have everything he possesses taken into account.
10.0 p.m.
The more I examine the potentialities of these proposals the more I am shocked. We must not overlook the mass of extra work which will be thrown upon public assistance committees by these proposals. In my own town 3,000 men will have to be dealt with by the public assistance committees, the members of which are men and women doing voluntary work. They cannot do all this extra work, and some of them have already stated that they will not attempt it. The relieving officers will be employed as expert investigators, and they are sympathetic men in the main, or, at any rate, that is so in the town which I represent. A totally new class of investigators will be necessary. The Minister of Labour may say that some of those who are now employed as clerks at the Employment Exchanges will be available for this work, but they are not fit for the particular class of inquiries to be made under the Poor Law. I can imagine what will happen. I wish hon. Members opposite, who are supporting these proposals, could have the experience of having such an investigator coming into their homes; I would like to see those investigators putting questions to the wives of hon. Members, going through their homes, and taking stock of everything. I am sure that there is not an hon. Member opposite, who has any decency at all in him, who would not be inclined to throw the investigator out of the house in such circumstances. I remember when the Prince of Wales'
Fund was being administered for the wives of the soldiers left behind after the War broke out. So iniquitous were the inquisitions in regard to the soldiers' wives that the people threw over the administration, subscribed to their own fund, and run the administration in their own way. The proposals which we are discussing will create a new class of investigator, and I am amazed that any hon. Member opposite who calls himself an English gentleman can support such proposals.
In the 16th century masses of men and women were turned out into the roads. An attempt was made first of all to cure unemployment by hanging, and that did not succeed. They branded the unemployed on their foreheads; they lopped off their ears. That was the way in which they dealt with the poor in the 16th century. I believe that similar methods would be adopted to-day if they would be tolerated. What is now proposed is a refined way of doing the same thing, and treating men who fought in the War as a class definitely below the status of the unemployed. Those men will not have even the status of the men at the Employment Exchanges. I shall do what I can to arouse in the minds of my people the iniquity of these proposals, and I have nothing but contempt for them and for those who support them.

Mr. GRAY: I think the Committee is to be congratulated, on the whole, on the nature of the Debate that has taken place on this Supplementary Estimate. Not only has there been an attempt to arrive at a certain amount of definite information, which the Committee naturally desires to have, but more than one valuable suggestion has been made. I do not propose to enter into the controversies which have taken place during the passage of the Bill with which this Estimate has to do; I think I shall be better serving the desire of the Committee if I take up the time at my disposal in trying to reply as clearly and explicitly as possible to a number of points and requests for information that have been made.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), I should like to point out at once that there is not the slightest intention what-
ever of applying any of those conditions associated with the Poor Law which relate to test work or similar things of that kind. [Interruption.] I make that perfectly explicit statement. [Interruption.] Nothing in the nature of either test work, payment in kind, or anything of that sort is contemplated in connection with the provisions of the Bill. May I remind the Committee and hon. Members opposite, without raising any controversial point, that they themselves as a party, if not entirely committed, were prepared to give very full and careful consideration to the question of some means test? [Interruption.] I am not going into any controversial matter as regards disputes between the last Government and the present one, and I would ask the Committee to have a little patience. The point is this: When you are paying transitional benefit, or payments which, as is admitted by everyone, are not based on contributions that warrant those payments on any insurance basis, are you going to make those payments for any continued length of time without any—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]—let us be quite clear—without any consideration whatever as to whether a man who is receiving them is possessed of ample funds, or is even paying Income Tax? After all, it has to be remembered that a person receiving transitional benefit is not necessarily a person who has nothing else to live upon. He has to satisfy certain conditions, and, if the Committee will allow me to remind them of it, a question was asked in the House just recently with regard to a case which was reported in the Press in connection with some separation order, where the man concerned was in possession of, I think, something like £3,000, and was drawing unemployment benefit.
If a person is drawing standard benefit to which he has contributed, and to which he is entitled under a proper insurance scheme, you have no right to ask what he has got; but I do suggest to the Committee, and I should have thought that it was common ground in the House, that, when you are making a payment which is really a payment out of public money—because it must be remembered that the whole of the money for these transitional payments now, by the Act of the Labour Administration, no longer falls on the insurance fund, but falls on the public Exchequer; it is not
money contributed by the employer or the employed, but is purely public money voted directly out of the public Exchequer—I should have thought that there was a measure of common agreement in the House that, when you are paying away money like that, you are entitled at least to see that the man or woman who is going to receive it is really in need of it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the hon. Gentleman know the Act? May I put this point to him? The moment a man goes on to transitional benefit he has to satisfy an additional test—the test as to whether he is normally in insurable employment. On that test the court of referees is entitled to know, not only his income, but his wife's income, not for the purpose of satisfying a Poor Law test, but in order to find out whether he is normally in insurable employment. If he has, say, £3,000, he must disclose it, and, if the court of referees thinks that the fact that he has £3,000 is keeping him from looking for work, that is to say, from being normally in insurable employment, they are entitled to refuse him benefit.

Mr. GRAY: I am exceedingly obliged to the hon. Member for his very interesting statement. It may deal with a certain type of case, but I think he will agree that the umpire's decision cannot rest upon whether a man has means or not. The umpire's decision rests upon whether he is a man who was normally following an insurable occupation, and, after all, that does raise the case of a large group of persons, with whom I should have thought hon. Members would be familiar, who are not absolutely in need of relief. That, however, is not the point in dispute. We are not dealing here with cases of emotion, or of the desire to benefit a group of workers, and I do feel that we are entitled to ask the Committee to take what seems to me to be a broader view than that. The view we are taking is that you cannot allow people who do not need this money to draw it when they are not drawing it as a result of contributions paid. In that case it really is a form of public assistance. Let us accept that term, because it is the fact.
We have two forms of public assistance in this country. There is the one which is administered, through the local
authorities, to those people, irrespective of who they are, where they come from, what their income may be, or what their experience may be, who have fallen on bad times and who have no other reserves. At least our civilisation has reached the stage of saying that they shall not starve, and they can appeal to the local public, assistance committee. Then there is a large class of our fellowcitizens—and I am bound to raise this point when I am pressed—who, I claim, are just as decent as any working people in this country. I am not going to admit that the agricultural labourer is less decent than the industrial worker. Let us get this clear because it is fundamental. These people have no payment under transitional benefit at all and what has been borne in upon me as I have listened to the Debate is that, if the public assistance committees are as cruel in their administration and as unfeeling in the way in which they give public assistance as the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) and others have painted them, the time has come when the more organised workers should be put upon them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will you put the unemployed Lord Chancellor on them, too?

Mr. GRAY: Yes. I would put the unemployed Lord Chancellor on if he applies for transitional benefit. The point is that you must either allow the claim that you are going to have very special treatment for the industrial worker which you do not give to other poor people or you must be prepared to admit a means test of some kind. May I leave that controversy aside and try to answer explicitly the points that have been raised? The public assistance committees, acting as agents for the Ministry of Labour, will be asked to assess the need of every person who claims transitional benefit on the same basis as they would assess the need, in cash only, of an able-bodied worker who came to them in. any other way. We are not trying to keep anything from the Committee and we are giving a perfectly clear and plain answer.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: In the case of a public assistance committee which, as a matter of practice, does not give any relief to the able-bodied unemployed, will they be compelled to give relief now under your regulations?

Mr. GRAY: They will be compelled to assess the amounts. I at least assume that public officials, whatever their personal predilections are, attempt to administer the law fairly and in reason. I think I shall take the Minister with me here. If we found] that any public assistance committee were not fulfilling their duty we should find some method of dealing with them.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Gentleman has said public assistance committees will inquire as to the position of the applicant and will take a decision on his income in cash and cash only. Is that the instruction that is to be sent out?

Mr. GRAY: We will ask the public assistance committee to assess to us the amount of cash that the applicant requires. Their business is to supply us with information as to the amount of cash that is required, and it is to be based on the amount of cash which, if they were paying the cash, they themselves would give. The regulations that we are issuing are not regulations for the public assistance committee to assess on. They will be regulations setting up the necessary machinery to operate between the Ministry of Labour and the public assistance committees for carrying out the work that we are entrusting to them.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: This is a very important point. If the regulations are not to provide any safeguards to ensure that people needing benefit get it, what is the object of the regulations? You do not need regulations merely to settle the terms on which the public assistance committee is going to discharge its functions.

Mr. GRAY: I do not think the hon. Member need have interrupted me for that purpose. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that, so far as the assessment of need is concerned, we are throwing that responsibility upon the public assistance committee, and we have this difficulty, which I will put quite frankly to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman who interrupted me just now pointed out that in his area the public assistance committees are quite generous in their method of dealing with applicants. Other committees, we hear, are quite different. You have varying conditions in the vary-
ing localities. A public assistance committee in an area where rents are low may probably make assessments on a lower basis than a public assistance committee in an area where rents are very high. We are not attempting as a Ministry to enter into all these questions. I rather hope that in the light of the experience we shall gain we may get more or less valuable information, and it may be that we shall get more uniformity as regards this particular work.
I have dealt with the question of the destitution test. That which was pointed out by the hon. Member is not, in fact, a fair description of the method adopted by the public assistance committees. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised one or two interesting points with regard to the question of dealing with forms. That matter is under consideration, and we shall take all the facts into that consideration. At the moment, the probable scheme we have in mind is that the original form will be filled up in the Exchange and passed over to the public assistance committee to deal with. We have a very difficult task in regard to this work. We have to feel our way and find out the most effective method. As regards the associations with which we have been in consultation, they have been the recognised associations—the County Councils' Association and the Municipal Corporations' Association. They are the bodies which are in the habit of consulting Government Departments in relation to general matters of procedure of local authorities.
I cannot deal with all the interesting suggestions, but I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am being in any way disrespectful. That would require legislation. The decisions are not to be subject to the approval of the Minister, but are to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The question of expense has been raised with regard to local authorities. Some local authorities, we understand, may not even ask us to pay any extra expense. That circumstance will probably arise in places where there is very little unemployment and few cases have to be dealt with. The procedure is that they will apply to us to reimburse them for expenses they incur in regard to the administration of this part of the Act, and in respect of
approved expenditure they will be reimbursed. I do not think that hon. Members will expect me to say more than that, but we undertake to reimburse any local authority for any additional expense which they incur, subject to the prescribed procedure.

Mr. BATEY: What if they have to appoint an additional official?

Mr. GRAY: If they have to appoint an additional official, that no doubt would come into the cost. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the period of review. We have not at the moment laid down any particular conditions with regard to that matter. The practice of a good many authorities is to review fortnightly. In our judgment, that may he rather a short period in which to review but if an authority was in a position to do it and cared to do it, we should have no objection. I cannot conceive that any public assistance committee which had a large number of cases to deal with could review cases so swiftly as that.

Mr. LAWSON: I raise this question because I see in the Press a statement that the London Public Assistance Committee have already laid down rules where they have to inquire once a fortnight into these particular cases.

Mr. GRAY: The hon. Member is dealing, I presume, with the ordinary procedure of the public assistance committee.

Mr. LAWSON: No. The procedure, I understand from the Press is, the procedure to be applied in these particular cases.

Mr. GRAY: We have not laid down any regulations, and we are not laying down regulations, that will cover such a short period as that. I think I have covered the bulk of the points as regards the information that was required, except the question as to the basis on which the estimates have been arrived at. I am afraid that I cannot give any more additional assistance to the committee, because they will realise that the data on which we have to work is exceedingly small. The estimated number on which the calculations have been made has been on an estimated number of 3,000,000 unemployed. That figure is in the White
Paper, and that has been the basis of our calculations. The Committee will realise that in calculating this Estimate we had to arrive as nearly as we could at what might be regarded as a rough guess as to what will be the result of these proposals. It is impossible for the Department to say to what extent there will be reductions. It may be that a large number of people will say: "Under these provisions we know that we shall not qualify," and consequently they will not apply. I cannot say. Until we have had some experience, and some statistical evidence on which to work and we know how far reductions may be made in the scale of benefit, we cannot speak with certainty, but we have framed an estimate as closely as we could, a rough working estimate, as to how far we think these proposals will affect the expenditure that will terminate with the next financial year. I am sorry that I have not been able to give hon. Members fuller and more explicit information, but I think they will agree that I have given them all the information that I could, and I ask the Committee now to give us the Vote.

Mr. SIMMONS: I desire to ask whether ex-Service men's pensions, disability pensions, will be taken into account by the public assistance committees in assessing need, whether the qualification for disablement ex-Service men's pensions will still hold good, and whether disabled ex-Service men, apart from ordinary ex-Service men, will have only the 26 weeks.

Mr. GRAY: No distinction has been made as regards the operations of this Clause to any class. It will operate right through. As regards the pensions of ex-Service men, they will be dealt with according to the practice and habit of the public assistance committees.

Mr. LOGAN: In regard to the means test, am I to understand that the question of the contents of a home are not to be taken into consideration, as is now done under the Poor Law system?

Mr. GRAY: The answer is that there have been no instructions of any kind given.

Mr. LOGAN: Then may we take it that instructions will be given—

It being Half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd September, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Motion already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,699,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 268.

Division No. 501.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Pole, Major D. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Herriotts, J.
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Arnott, John
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Raynes, W. R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hoffman, P. C.
Richards, R.


Ayles, Walter
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Isaacs, George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Jenkins, Sir William
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Barr, James
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Romeril, H. G.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rowson, Guy


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sawyer, G. F.


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scrymgeour, E.


Brooke, W.
Kinley, J.
Scurr, John


Brothers, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Sexton, Sir James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Sherwood, G. H.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Shield, George William


Buchanan, G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Shinwell, E.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cameron, A. G.
Lawson, John James
Simmons, C. J.


Cape, Thomas
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sinkinson, George


Carter, W. (St. Paneras, S. W.)
Leach, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Chater, Daniel
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Clarke, J. S.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Cluse, W. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Logan. David Gilbert
Stamford, Thomas W.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Longbottom, A. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Longden, F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lunn, William
Strauss, G. R.


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sullivan, J.


Dallas, George
McElwee, A.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
McEntee, V. L.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McKinlay, A.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Thurtle, Ernest


Dukes, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tillett, Ben


Dunnico, H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Ede, James Chuter
McShane, John James
Tout, W. J.


Edmunds, J. E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Townend, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Manning, E. L.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mansfield, W.
Turner, Sir Ben


Egan, W. H.
Marcus, M.
Vaughan, David


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Marley, J.
Walker, J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marshall, Fred
Wallace, H. W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mathers, George
Watkins, F. C.


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gill, T. H.
Messer, Fred
Wellock, Wilfred


Gossling, A. G.
Middleton, G.
Welsh. James (Paisley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, J. E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morley, Ralph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Murnin, Hugh
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Harbord, A.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wise, E. F.


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Oldfield, J. R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Haycock, A. W.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)



Hayes, John Henry
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palmer, E. T.
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Paling.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Elmley, Viscount
Markham, S. F.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston s-M.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Albery, Irving James
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Millar, J. D.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ferguson, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Atholl, Duchess of
Foot, Isaac
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Atkinson, C.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.


Balniel, Lord
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Beaumont, M. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gillett, George M.
O'Connor, T. J.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Birkett, W. Norman
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Blindell, James
Granville, E.
Penny, Sir George


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gray, Milner
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, Sir Basil E- (Devon, Barnstaple)


Briscoe, Richard George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Pybus, Percy John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Buchan, John
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hammersley, S. S.
Remer, John R.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hanbury, C.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Butler, R. A.
Harris, Percy A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Harvey, Major S, E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stratford)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ross, Ronald D.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Rothschild, J. de


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., w.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell Richard John (Eddisbury)


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Salmon, Major I.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Savery, S. S.


Colville, Major D. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Scott, James


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Simon, E. D. (Manch[...]ter, Withington)


Cowan, D. M.
Knight, Holford
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Calthness)


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Smlthere, Waldron


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Somerset, Thomas


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handswith)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Long, Major Hon. Erie
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lymington, Viscount
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Dawson, Sir Philip
McConnell. Sir Joseph
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Thompson, Luke


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomson, Sir F.


Dug dale, Capt. T. L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edge, Sir William
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Train, J.




Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
White, H. G.
Wood, Major Mckenzie (Banff)


Turton, Robert Hugh
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Wilton, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hernsey)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Withers, Sir John James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.


Wayland, Sir William A.
Womersley, W. J.
Glassey.


Wells, Sydney R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley



Original Question put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith, the Questions necessary to dispose of the business el Supply to be concluded at Half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

CLASS VI.

ROAD FUND.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £7,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Advances to the Road Fund.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 208.

Division No. 502.]
AYES.
[10.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Cowan, D. M.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Albery, Irving James
Cranborne, Viscount
Hammersley, S. S.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'I., W.)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hanbury, C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Harbord, A.


Aske, Sir Robert
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Harris, Percy A.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hartington, Marquess of


Atholl, Duchess of
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Atkinson, C.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Beaumont, M. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bellairs, Commander Cartyon
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Birkett, W. Norman
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Blindell, James
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Edge, Sir William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bowyer, Captain sir George E. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Briscoe, Richard George
Elmley, Viscount
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.-s. M.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Knight, Holford


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Buchan, John
Ferguson, Sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro & Whitby)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Foot, Isaac
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Burton. Colonel H. W
Ford, Sir p. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Butler, R. A.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Cadogan, Major Hen. Edward
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Campbell, E. T.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Castle Stewart, Earl of
George, Megan Lloyd (Angiesea)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gillett, George M.
Lymington, Viscount


Cayzar, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Granville, E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Christie, J. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macquisten, F. A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gray, Milner
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Colman, N. C. D.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Colville, Major D. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Millar, J. D.


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Ross, Ronald D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Rothschild, J. de
Thompson, Luke


Muirhead, A. J.
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E.
Thomson, Sir F.


Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Salmon, Major I.
Train, J.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


O'Connor, T. J.
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Savery, S. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Scott, James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Penny, Sir George
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wayland, Sir William A


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whlttome
Wells, Sydney R.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
White, H. G.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Skelton, A. N.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Withers, Sir John James


Pybus, Percy John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerset, Thomas
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Renter, John R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Reynolds, Sir Gervals S.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.



Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Mr. Glassey and Sir Victor


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lawson, John James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Alpass, J. H.
Gibbins, Joseph
Leach, W.


Amnion, Charles George
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, M[...]ssley)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Arnott, John
Gill, T. H.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gossling, A. G.
Leonard, W.


Ayles, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Logan, David Gilbert


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
Longbottom, A. W.


Barr, James
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Longden, F.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bowen, J. W.
Grundy, Thomas W.
McElwee, A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
McEntee, V. L.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McKinlay, A.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacLaren, Andrew


Bromley, J.
Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Brooke, W.
Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Brothers, M.
Haycock, A. W.
McShane, John James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hayes, John Henry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Manning, E. L.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mansfield, W.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Marcus, M.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marley, J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marshall, Fred


Cameron, A. G.
Harriotts, J.
Mathers, George


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maxton, James


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Messer, Fred


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Middleton, G.


Chater, Daniel
Isaacs, George
Mills, J. E.


Clarke, J. S.
Jenkins, Sir William
Milner, Major J.


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morley, Ralph


Compton, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.


Daggar, George
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muff, G.


Dallas, George
Kelly, W. T.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Murnin, Hugh


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Naylor, T. E.


Day, Harry
Kinley, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, M.)


Dukes, C.
Kirkwood, D.
Oldfield, J. R.


Dunnico, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Ede, James Chuter
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Edmunds, J. E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Palin, John Henry


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Palmer, E. T.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lawrence, Susan
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Egan, W. H.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.




Phillips, Dr. Marion
Shinwell, E.
Walker, J.


Pole, Major D. G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wallace, H. w.


Potts, John S.
Simmons, C. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Qulbell, D. J. K.
Sinkinson, George
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Raynes, W. R.
Sitck, Charles H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Richards, R.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Westwood, Joseph


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Ritson, J.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Romeril, H. G.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Rowson, Guy
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Strauss, G. R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sanders, W. S.
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sawyer, G. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Scrymgeour, E.
Thurtie, Ernest
Wise, E. F.


Scurr, John
Tillett, Ben
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sexton, Sir James
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tout, W. J.



Sherwood, G. H.
Townend, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shield, George William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Turner, Sir Ben
Paling.


Shillaker, J. F.
Vaughan, David



Question put, and agreed to.

Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Resolutions to the House pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd September.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion, and Question proposed,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, the sum of £20,700,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Major Elliot.]

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd September to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business of Ways and Means to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Resolution to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd September.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

LAND DRAINAGE, DONCASTER AREA.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 9th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. KELLY: May I not move the Second Reading of the Spiritualism and Psychical Research (Exemption) Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. PALING: I want to raise a question regarding the flooding in and around Doncaster. The Minister of Agriculture is probably aware, arising out of information which has already been given to him, that owing to the serious flooding of the River Don a fortnight or three weeks ago, a considerable area has been seriously damaged. While a big area of agricultural land has been flooded and crops lost and farmers put in a serious position, that is not the worst part of the situation. In other places where large populations are living, the flooding varied from nine inches to as much as four feet six inches deep. In four distinct places there were nine inches of water, and in three others from 15 inches up to four feet six inches of water. In the worst places, where about 1,200 people lived, the water remained for a fortnight. A fortnight last Sunday the water began to flow into this particular area, and on Monday night, when it reached its height, there was in some of the houses which were in the lowest situation nearly four feet six inches of water. Palisades in front of the houses were nearly buried in water.
The people had to leave their homes. The local council made the best efforts to get help, and the residents were in the nature of refugees. They had to take refuge among neighbours, and those who could not find refuge in that way had to be accommodated in the schools
and in one of the clubs. They were in a terrible plight. Most of their furniture was destroyed and nearly all their food and clothing was lost. Their allotments, which were close to the housing estate, were flooded and most of the produce and live stock destroyed. What we are concerned about is that this thing has been threatened for some years and nothing has been done. In 1923 the county council brought a Bill to this House asking for power to put drainage works into operation. Those of us who were interested in the area which was most affected by subsidence tried to get into the Bill some powers to deal with the particular flooding which was due mainly to subsidence, but it was stated that the powers for which we were asking were much too large for a Bill like that. We were promised, however, that steps would be taken as early as possible to deal with the matter on a big and satisfactory basis.
11.0 p.m.
Alter that, the Royal Commission on Subsidence was set up, and after viewing Doncaster and this area, they came to the conclusion that the problem in that district was of such an urgent character that it could not await the report of the Commission, and they set up another commission to inquire specially into the flooding and draining of this area. This Commission made their recommendations in 1928, and a Bill went through the House and became an Act of Parliament giving powers to set up an area drainage committee in April, 1929. In order to show the serious nature of the business round there, the Royal Commission—the bigger Commission—after reporting that they had some evidence of the amount of coal that will eventually be taken out and the amount of subsidence that will take place, say:
Long before that period is reached, however, the existing system of drainage, it is apprehended by some of the witnesses, will be rendered entirely useless. The surface would become either waterlogged or a great lake. Agricultural values will be destroyed, industrial developments will be hindered, workers on the land will be driven from their homes, while the process itself would constitute a serious menace to the public health.
The Commission which inquired specially into the Doncaster area stated:
In the Doncaster area, where long stretches of country are below or little above the 25 feet contour, the effect of subsidence would be very considerable. It is therefore quite intelligible that the prospect of the development of coal mines in the Doncaster area should have aroused some apprehensions of alarm. It was felt that unless adequate measures were taken there large tracts of land would be in danger not only of losing their agricultural value from waterlogging but of being submerged, and that the same fate would befall roads villages, and farm buildings.
I submit to the Minister that that has taken place—not that all places are submerged, but that these floods have shown what is likely to take place at almost any time when the water in the river rises to the top of the banks.
There is another point I want to make clear. The River Don has what is called "spillways" in the Bentley area. As far as I can remember, the last floods in this area were between 30 and 40 years ago. Those spillways were pat in at this particular point, now the Bentley area, because it was thought that when the river reached a certain height the water would come over these spillways, ease the banks, and prevent the possibility of the banks breaking. This area was selected because at that time it was largely agricultural, and it was thought that the flooding over the stillways would do less damage than in any other area. Those particular stillways came into operation, and huge volumes of water poured over them into the area round about Bentley. Previously, before subsidence took place in this area, when water came over these stillways it rested in the area—it was agricultural land largely—and, when the water in the river went down, quickly made its way off the land into the river, with very little damage done except to that agricultural land.
Since that time mines have been sunk round about that neighbourhood, and all the land about there has gone down nearly four feet. In some places in Bentley the land is only 16 feet, or round about that, above sea level. Because of this subsidence a large part of this area is in the shape of a saucer. This time when the water came over the stillways it made its way for a mile or two from the river down into the saucer, put out of action the pumps erected there to deal with the ordinary average rainfall and accumulated
to the extent that I mentioned when starting my speech.
It was from one foot three inches to four feet six inches in the worst cases, and it stood there more than a fortnight before it could be got away. It was over a week before any reduction was made in the height of the water there, and last Sunday, when I went down there, I found that in the houses which were worst placed there were still nine to 15 inches of water. That is a very serious position for these people.
Since these stillways were put in not only have mining operations caused subsidence, but huge numbers of people have come to live there. What was previously an agricultural area is now an industrial area, and, if my information is correct, about 1,500 people are rendered entirely homeless, in addition to the fact that at least 1,000 or 2,000 other people had water in their houses for at least a day or two. The Commission suggested that measures might be taken to avoid the misfortune which had occurred, but from that day to this nothing has been done. I put a question to the Minister and he said that there was a small scheme costing £300 which had been submitted to the Department, but it had been turned down. That was such a small scheme that it could not have dealt with the situation. The information which was given to me a fortnight ago was that there had been a big scheme costing £250,000 sent in by the Doncaster Drainage Board and it was waiting for the approval of the. Minister of Agriculture. The Minister subsequently said that the scheme had not been sent in. I understand that the same scheme was recommended by the Commission as long ago as 1928.
The drainage board has been in operation for two and a-half years, and nothing has been done. When the flooding occurred the local council asked for an inspector to be sent down. This was done and the inspector made a report. I suppose that report is confidential but if it is not, and if it is possible to give us any information as to the result of the inspection, I hope the Minister will give it to us tonight. In any event, I want to impress upon the Minister the urgency of the problem. This difficulty is one which has been foreseen for years by everybody
with any knowledge of the situation, and what has actually come to pass was prophesied at least 10 or 12 years ago, and it may occur again if there is anything like an abnormal rainfall in that district. If nothing has been done I hope the Minister will see that the powers given to the drainage board are used in the near future, and that something will be done to stop this flooding. There was a suggestion that even if the big scheme which has been referred to was sent in and accepted, it would take such a long time before it came into full operation that if any flooding occurred between now and then that area would be flooded again. Another scheme was suggested to cost between £20,000 and £25,000 which would at least stop flooding in the industrial parts of this area and avoid rendering these people homeless. If the Minister had seen this place as I have, I am sure he would see the urgency of dealing with this question. The picture of desolation in this area is the worst that I have ever seen, and I am sure if he realised the actual position we should have the sympathy of the Minister of Agriculture. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman can do to suggest a remedy, because I am aware that that is the business of the drainage board, but I think he has powers to get something done and these powers should be used as quickly as possible in order to avoid the recurrence of this trouble.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The hon. Member who introduced this subject has given a very fair resumé of the position. It is, of course, perfectly clear that in this district, owing to a combination of circumstances, very abnormal flooding has taken place. I think, from all the information that I have been able to gather, that such an extensive flooding has not taken place in that district for, certainly, some 30 years. It is one of those cases where a very abnormal rainfall has accentuated the difficulties which exist in the circumstances of the drainage of the waters of the district, and as the hon. Member has said, the difficulties have been further accentuated by the subsidence in the area, due to the mining operations. The hon. Gentleman, of course, is anxious to know what can be done to avoid a recurrence of this trouble and to provide some safeguard against
the losses which have been inflicted on the unfortunate people in some of these houses—losses, of course, which are very serious for many of them.
This area of the lower Don with which we are dealing comes within the special drainage district of the Doncaster Area Drainage Board, which was constituted in 1929, and, as I understand, the Drainage Board have been considering for some time a fairly extensive scheme for widening and deepening this river and raising its banks. It is quite clear that this trouble is due, not to breaking of the banks, but to the rising of the water and the overflow from the river, and at the present moment, as far as I understand from the report of the Ministry's inspector, in spite of the serious flooding, there has been no breaking of the banks.
Some time ago, I understand, the Ministry received a resolution from the Doncaster Board in favour of a Government grant being made, either through the Ministry or through the Unemployment Grants Committee, towards the scheme to which the hon. Member referred, which it was estimated, I understand, would cost something in the neighhourhood of £250,000; but the Ministry confined themselves, in the first instance, to awaiting the constitution of the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board under the Land Drainage Act of 1930. I think the reason for that was that the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board have power to make, to any internal board in their area, such as the Doncaster Board, a grant in certain circumstances set out in the Act. As it has turned out, this present disaster occurred before the catchment board, which has only been constituted very recently, could consider such an application, or before a proper application could be made to the Ministry. Unfortunately, in the interim—I will be quite frank with the hon. Member and with the House—we have had to announce, to all drainage boards other than catchment boards, the inability of the Government to make further grants for unemployment relief schemes under the various programmes hitherto put forward, and it is quite clear that the board concerned in this case have not in fact submitted a scheme to the Ministry. As I said in answer to a question on this subject, the only scheme which has been submitted was a minor scheme for the clearing of a
tributary system—a small scheme amounting to a sum of £300. The Department went into that very carefully, and, as I understand it, our technical advisers came to the conclusion that it was not a scheme which they could approve. In any case it is clear that it was a very small matter compared with the present scheme.
With regard to the future, it, of courser must be a matter for the board to decide to submit a scheme. I have made it quite clear to the House that I fear that, unless there is some very great emergency, such as a breakage which will be of very serious import, the very limited amount of money which is now available to the Ministry precludes the possibility of our giving a grant of anything like the size that that scheme would entail. But at this stage I do not want entirely to rule out the consideration of any scheme which this board may bring up. It is clear that it would be the duty of the Ministry to consider that matter in all its aspects. It certainly would be proper, in my judgment, that it should be looked at with the greatest care and considered in the light of the views which the board may express. Indeed, I understand that it is possible that certain alternative proposals of a more modest nature than the large scheme may be proposed, but I do not know. The question of making further provision for the overflow of water by building some earth wall or embankment might of course be a matter for consideration, but I am in this position. I do not wish to express a judgment upon a case when have not all the facts before me, and I feel that it ought to be considered in conjunction with the report of the inspector who has inquired into the circumstances. On the other hand, I have to be frank with the House, and indeed with all the catchment boards in the country, on the question of the available finances at the disposal of the Ministry. While one has every sympathy and recognises the damage that has been done, one must realise that this case has been very abnormal and that it may well be that it will not occur in the extensive form that we have seen it this year for a very considerable time. I run afraid it is rather cold comfort that I am holding out to the hon. Member and to those interested in the problem. I shall look most carefully into
the matter but Government assistance can only be given, in the very modest circumstances, in those cases where the matter is of very vital importance.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. While I am bound to confess, with all the facts before him, recognising, as he must, that the Royal Commission themselves felt that this area was so different from any other part of the country and was becoming more so with continued coal mining, that apparently he puts that with the exceptional cases we have had in the past few months, it may be due to unfortunate incidents from which we are now suffering but which may not repeat themselves for the next 30 years. I would remind him that that is not the case. Every day, every week, every month, more and more coal is being brought from the bowels of the earth to the surface. The subsidence is taking place almost daily, and the best mining engineer we have in that part of the country said that in the first seam the subsidence will be to the extent of anywhere up to four feet. The position between Sheffield, Doncaster and Goole is as follows: Approximately 18 miles from Sheffield to Doncaster the fall is about three yards per 100; from Doncaster to Goole, a similar distance, the fall is approximately one yard per 100; but with the continued mining subsidence round the Doncaster area, the fall from Doncaster to Goole is going to be nil. There is no possible means of water escaping unless really big schemes are undertaken. I am bound to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding the very real desire for economy, it would be false economy to turn down any scheme for this area which is likely to enable not only mining to continue but the people who perform the function of mining to live with safety in their homes. Therefore, I plead with the right hon. Gentleman not to carry out the terms of the reply that he gave on Monday last to a question, in which he said:
The boards must, of course, have regard to the fact that there will be a limited amount of money available and only the most urgent schemes can be proceeded with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th September, 1931; col. 19, Vol. 257.]
This matter is really urgent. It is of vast importance to all the mining com-
munities in the area and to agriculturists round about. While it may be quite easy to postpone schemes in some parts of the country where they are not so urgent, it would be a crime of the worst form to refuse to concede that measure of financial assistance in this area. As a result of the Royal Commission's recommendations and the Act that was passed in 1929 a board was set up exclusively for dealing with this very special mining subsidence problem round about Doncaster. That is the Doncaster Board as distinct from the Catchment Board, who are dealing with the bigger problem. This particular situation has been in existence for approximately 2½ years and I have received complaints from farmers in this area telling me how their crops have been destroyed as a result of constant flooding, not flooding once every 30 years, but floods quite regularly which leave the poor and often small farmer in doubt as to whether having planted his potatoes or sown his other crops he is going to reap anything or not. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's Department has some responsibility to the farmers in that area. If the boards for which the Department are in some way responsible, having set them up originally, are failing to function, and are failing to provide the farmers in that area with the necessary safeguards, I think the right hon. Gentleman's Department ought to superimpose some influence and ought to inspire them into activity. It is useful work. It is providing for the farmers the only possible safeguard they can have, to get their fields drained and the small schemes undertaken and carried out, so that whatever security may be given will be provided for them as a result of the activities of the Doncaster Board. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman therefore to pay special attention to the big scheme, which is bound to repeat itself as a result of the continuous coal mining, and to the smaller scheme for which the Doncaster Board is responsible. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bring all the pressure to bear that he can and to insist upon the Board doing its duty.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Eleven o'clock.